Westminster Hall
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Lesbian Visibility Week
(1 day, 9 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Kate Osborne (Jarrow and Gateshead East) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered Lesbian Visibility Week.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Butler. In this debate we are considering that this House believes LGBTQIA+ women and non-binary people should be recognised for the work that they do and the joy that they bring.
Lesbian Visibility Week originated in 1990, and has been given life and observed annually in the UK since 2019, enabled by my good friend and ex-publisher of DIVA magazine, Linda Riley. I am so pleased that we are once again acknowledging its importance in a Parliament that boasts the largest number of openly lesbian, bisexual and gay women MPs in history.
Maureen Colquhoun, the first openly lesbian MP, was elected 51 years ago but was deselected by her local party the year she came out—a stark reminder of the struggles faced by lesbian politicians. It took 23 years for there to be another openly lesbian MP. Thankfully, there are now a lot more of us, including some of my brilliant colleagues who will be speaking in this debate.
Lesbian and gay women face intersecting discrimination based on their gender and sexuality, and of course, people of colour and lesbians with disabilities also face unique challenges and discrimination due to intersecting identities. But while it is crucial to address those challenges, it is equally important to celebrate the significant contributions that lesbians make in fostering solidarity and sisterhood within their communities. Lesbian women have played, and will always play, a pivotal role in not only supporting each other but leading and strengthening the broader women’s and LGBT+ rights movements.
For the past five years we have set aside this week in April to celebrate and uplift lesbians everywhere, from all backgrounds and all walks of life. We are a community that grows stronger each and every year for it. This year, the theme is celebrating rainbow families, focusing on LGBT+ women and non-binary people’s families and recognising the importance of all family structures.
On Tuesday night I was proud to host the second annual parliamentary launch of Lesbian Visibility Week. At the event, London Women’s Clinic launched its new IVF equality manifesto. As a mum of two wonderful boys, one of whom was conceived through IVF, it is a subject close to my heart. Everyone deserves the chance to start a family, no matter their sexuality or gender identity.
It was around 16 years ago that I started the IVF process as part of a same-sex couple. At that time we went through unnecessary procedures, a long waiting list and significant costs. But despite the hurdles it was achievable, and my wonderful youngest son is now 14. Since the IVF journey that I was part of, the hurdles that LGBT+ couples have to jump through have increased, with a fragmented NHS meaning a postcode lottery in provision, while the financial cost is significantly higher.
The event was attended by many MPs and guests, and I thank everyone who came. I particularly thank the Minister for Equalities, my hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Dame Nia Griffith), for attending the event and speaking, and for responding to this debate, as well as DIVA’s Linda Riley and Anya Sizer from the London Women’s Clinic for their speeches. It is disappointing that despite multiple promises there remain far too many unnecessary financial and practical barriers for same-sex couples, and a postcode lottery on IVF. I have written to the Secretary of State and Ministers on that on a number of occasions, and I will keep fighting until all barriers are removed.
I have dedicated most of my political career to campaigning for LGBTQIA+ equality. My first political activism was campaigning against section 28 and highlighting the damage it did, and continues to do, to our community. Section 28 was intended to silence the discussion of lesbians and gays. It failed. It united and energised our communities.
Rachel Taylor (North Warwickshire and Bedworth) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for securing this important debate. Like her, my first political activism was campaigning against section 28; that is what made me join our wonderful party. I feel truly supported by her and by my other lesbian colleagues in this place. It was that rhetoric, and comments that our relationships and families were somehow pretend family relationships, that was so hurtful. Does she agree that we now need to safeguard against the risks of the rhetoric about trans people doing the same sort of harm to them as it did to us in the 1980s?
Kate Osborne
I absolutely agree, and will touch on that later. As a community, we are always stronger when we are together, and we will always have T as part of the LGBT community.
Given the global attacks on our LGBT+ community, we need to find that fighting spirit again. The attacks on our community did not just start happening again; they were driven by far-right money from America, hate in this country and globally, the media and—yes—politicians, who should know better, continuing to demonise the LGBT+ community. Last year, I spoke about the increase in the lesbophobia that I faced: from being called a rug-muncher to being called a nonce, and having pride flags in my home town of Hebburn ripped down.
We have seen a rise in hate crime, and we must make active efforts to support our non-binary and trans community, who still face unique day-to-day challenges for simply being themselves and loving who they love. Under current hate crime legislation, hate crimes based on race or religion can attract a greater penalty because they are classified as aggravated offences. Our manifesto committed to ensuring that hate crime based on sexual orientation, gender identity and/or disability would also be classified as aggravated offences. I look forward to hearing from the Minister about moves towards that happening.
I sit on the Council of Europe and its committee on equality and non-discrimination. Part of my brief is reporting on the ban on so-called conversion practices across Europe. As part of that, I visit and speak to people in other countries about their legislation. One country was Italy. Outrageously, the official visit request was rejected, and I was unofficially told that this was because they did not want more of our finger-wagging critique. Thankfully, the very nice Maltese Government have offered us a visit instead.
Just last month, as I got off a train at King’s Cross, I was verbally abused by a man who shouted at me that I was obviously a lesbian, that I was a sexual deviant and that I was going to hell. I am frequently misgendered. I do not mean occasionally—it is a weekly occurrence. In January, I was misgendered three times during one two-hour train journey. I have been misgendered by staff of this House. I was misgendered while buying some jeans last week. This is genuinely a frequent issue for me and a number of my lesbian friends.
I note that Ministers said yesterday that there will be guidance regarding the Supreme Court verdict. That decision will have a huge impact on my life, on many other cis lesbians and, indeed, on heterosexual women. I suspect that I will get challenged even more now when accessing facilities. The impact on my life will be problematic, but the impact on my trans siblings’ lives will be significantly worse.
Jacob Collier (Burton and Uttoxeter) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for giving way, and for securing debate. I know that she has spoken passionately about these issues over many decades and that, like me, she will have received lots of correspondence from concerned trans and LGBT+ constituents over the last few days. Does she agree that it is for the Labour Government to get on with advancing the LGBT rights in the manifesto—things like the trans-inclusive conversion therapy ban, modernisation of the Gender Recognition Act 2004 and making LGBT hate crime an aggravated offence?
Kate Osborne
Yes, I believe that only now, with a Labour Government, will we see the continued advancement of LGBT rights, as we have in the past.
While we are on the topic of the judgment, let me say that it does not offer clarity. I believe that it has sown division and caused contradictions in legislation. The ruling was made without a single contribution from trans people and leaves them legally and practically at a huge disadvantage. I believe that the judgment raises many more questions than it answers, and I will be writing to the Secretary of State to set that out.
As a woman, a lesbian, a feminist and a proud dyke, the Supreme Court judgment, for me, is a step backwards. The court should not be telling me what a lesbian is or is not or how I should identify. We need empathy in finding ways to support people and let everyone live their own lives. Of course, we need to protect single-sex spaces in the very limited situations that they are needed—which is, and was already, covered in legislation and has never been disputed—while maintaining clear protections for trans people, especially trans women.
To see an already marginalised community attacked even more and the use of the law to increase discrimination, not prevent it, is deeply upsetting. Those celebrating the impact the decision has on trans women—that of curtailing their protections—should not be surprised when the same people that funded and supported their attacks then push for rights to be rolled back for all women. Research from Just Like Us clearly highlights that young lesbians are more supportive of the trans community than any other part of the LGBTQIA+ community. They are most likely to know a trans person—92%—and to say that they are supportive or very supportive of trans people—96%.
Ms Polly Billington (East Thanet) (Lab)
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for securing this debate. In the light of what she is saying about young lesbians, I want to champion the work of Schools OUT, which is led and was founded by one of my constituents, Sue Sanders. The organisation educates people in school about the importance of LGBT diversity, challenges prejudice at exactly the important moment in young people’s lives when they will be exploring who they may want to be as they grow older, and increases the tolerance and respect that everybody deserves.
Kate Osborne
In this as in so many other ways, young people can often teach us a lesson or two. I am pleased that my hon. Friend referenced Sue Sanders, as I did in my speech last year, and all the great work she has done over the years with Schools OUT, and indeed across the whole of our movement.
Contrary to the narrative being heard at the moment, most heterosexual women agree with young lesbians. We need to be clear that lesbophobia, homophobia and transphobia are driven by attacks from a far-right, hateful minority. Feminism has to be intersectional, recognising that all women, including trans women, deserve the same rights, safety and respect.
I thank the Minister for giving up her time today, and for all her work. Having an out lesbian Minister responding to a debate on Lesbian Visibility Week is something that we can all be very proud of.
Dawn Butler (in the Chair)
I remind Members that they should bob if they wish to be called in the debate.
Antonia Bance (Tipton and Wednesbury) (Lab)
It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Ms Butler. I congratulate my hon. Friend and sister the Member for Jarrow and Gateshead East (Kate Osborne) on securing this debate. I am a proud trade unionist, a proud Black Country MP and a proud lesbian MP—out for 26 years and now out here in this place. I rise to add my voice and my visibility to the debate. I could talk about the advances made by Labour Governments or the advances we hope for from this Labour Government, but instead I want to talk about a subject very close to my heart, the subject of this year’s Lesbian Visibility Week: being a mama.
There have always been lesbian mums. So many of us feel the urge to parent and to mother, often—sometimes in the past, sometimes today—in the face of huge homophobia and abuse, as well as practical obstacles. Indeed, a Radio 4 documentary in December, “The Lesbian Mothers Scandal”, set out how homophobic judges removed children from their mums simply because they were lesbians and sometimes gave custody of the children to abusive fathers. These women, who are now in their 70s and 80s, deserve an apology for the actions of the courts and the family court system. I hope the Minister will look at giving it.
I say again what I said in my maiden speech a few months ago:
“I grew up in a world where people like me could not get married, but now our beloved daughter has both her mothers’ names on her birth certificate.”—[Official Report, 8 October 2024; Vol. 754, c. 194.]
One of the proudest achievements of our last Labour Government, but one that people sometimes do not speak of, was the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008. For the first time, it recognised lesbian parents with both our names on birth certificates, and it opened fertility treatment to us, as well as to single women. Sometimes I think it is missed off the list of achievements of the last Labour Government, because it was an achievement for women in particular.
Now that we have a Labour Government again, it is time to take the next step, for all the lesbians who would like to have a family, and make sure that we equalise fertility treatment on the NHS. It is so clear that lesbian women still face unequal barriers to accessing fertility treatment. They face an average cost of £25,000 before they become eligible for NHS treatment, because of the need to jump through the hurdles of self-funded IUI rounds—sometimes many rounds—before they qualify. My own integrated care board, the Black Country ICB, requires lesbian couples to undertake six cycles of self-funded IUI before they are eligible for IVF. That is in addition to the cost of donor sperm, which I know for sure is not cheap. In my area, just one cycle of IVF is funded, not three as per the NICE guidelines.
The financial impact of self-funding is huge. For many couples, the disappointment when one IVF round is not enough is completely avoidable. I would like to see revised NICE guidelines and a commitment that every area should meet those guidelines in full. After all, as well as being Lesbian Visibility Week, this week is Infertility Awareness Week. I send my solidarity to all the women and their partners who are trying to conceive—TTC, in the language of the message boards.
Rachel Taylor
I recently spoke to a constituent who wanted to have a baby with her partner. She was told by her ICB that because of her partner’s situation—her partner already had a child—she would not qualify for any rounds of IVF. I looked into it and found that to be the case in other ICBs too. This needs to be taken into account as people enter new relationships. That is so important for our community.
Antonia Bance
My hon. Friend and sister is absolutely correct. There are a load of stupid barriers that do not reflect modern families and how we form our relationships nowadays. People do form second partnerships, and people do have existing children. Frankly, when many people are delaying childbearing and when fertility problems are on the rise, although in many cases they are completely soluble with medical treatment that we know very well how to do, the fact that these barriers continue to exist is absolutely outrageous. Too many women are navigating a postcode lottery and unfair rules, piling costs on their credit cards—I know about that—and worrying about money when they should be concentrating on the medical process.
In this place, books for children depicting all sorts of families were once decried as depraved and were used as justification to deny that lesbian families existed, to silence us and to call our families pretend. No longer. Heather does have two mummies, and so do Sam, Sanjay, Jessie, Aaron, Lily, Albie, Clementine and so many more, because it is love that makes a family.
Nadia Whittome (Nottingham East) (Lab)
It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Ms Butler. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow and Gateshead East (Kate Osborne) for securing this incredibly important debate and for her tireless work in advocating for the rights of lesbians and the entire LGBTQ+ community. I am very glad that she is in Parliament and that I have the privilege of working with her.
As an MP who is an out queer woman, I am also grateful for the foremothers who made living as my true self in the public eye possible, from the countless activists who fought for and won the rights that we all enjoy today to lesbian MPs such as Maureen Colquhoun, a campaigner for the abolition of women’s prisons, the liberalisation of abortion law and the decriminalisation of sex work who was deselected in a homophobic campaign, and of course my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Dame Angela Eagle), a key architect of the Equality Act who I am privileged to call my friend.
Lesbian Visibility Week’s mission is to recognise and celebrate LGBT+ women and non-binary people. This year’s theme is rainbow families. Rainbow families have always existed and always will, but queer women and non-binary people both here and internationally face many barriers to having the families they want. In the UK, many people are shocked to learn that we still do not have equal access to IVF, despite the previous Government publishing a women’s health strategy in 2022 that promised to tackle the issue. Ninety per cent of integrated healthcare boards in England require LGBTQ+ couples to self-fund at least six cycles of artificial insemination before they are eligible for NHS IVF treatment. Lesbian couples should not be forced to pay for private treatment simply as a gateway to NHS care. That is why I am proud to back the IVF equality manifesto and the wider fertility justice campaign manifesto, which also campaigns for important changes to birth certificates.
It would be remiss of me to talk about family without emphasising the importance of chosen family in the LGBTQ+ community. Although there are many supportive parents and family members out there who should be celebrated, a common experience within our community is rejection, hostility and a lack of acceptance by those we are related to. That is why chosen family is so important. I want to be clear that just because someone does not share our DNA, it does not mean that they are any less our family. I am so grateful for the deep bonds that I have formed outside the traditional family unit, as well as within it. That is something I think many of us can benefit from, whether we are LGBTQ or not.
Visibility is something to celebrate. Every person should be able to live openly and freely, loving who they want, but sadly many lesbians still do not feel able to do so in certain contexts. Visibility sometimes comes at a price. Queer women are still the victims of hate crimes simply for being queer women, and rates are rising. Let us be clear that the overwhelming danger towards women, whether they are LGBTQ+ or not, comes from violent cis men. That is why I am deeply concerned about the impact of last week’s Supreme Court judgment and the way in which it is being interpreted.
Making it legal to exclude trans women from bathrooms and changing rooms is discriminatory. Forcing them to use men’s facilities would put them at greater risk of violence. It also sends a dangerous message, because it enables people who see themselves as the gender police to challenge people in bathrooms and harass them. Of course, trans women will above all be the victims of this behaviour and face being driven out of society, but other people will also be affected. Cis lesbians, women of colour, non-binary people, trans men, women with conditions such as polycystic ovary syndrome and anyone who is gender non-conforming—who does not conform to these Eurocentric and ever-narrowing standards of femininity and womanhood—are likely to become a target too.
Incredibly, anti-trans campaigners regularly use lesbians as a justification for their agenda—an agenda that, by the way, undermines all of our rights. They claim that they are standing up for lesbians who do not want to share their spaces with trans women, when polling shows that cis lesbians and bisexual women are more supportive of trans people than any other group. They claim that trans people are forcing young cis lesbians to become trans men. This is the same as what was said about gay people under Thatcher: that we were “converting” children. Today, thankfully, most of society accepts that that is absolute nonsense, and there are more young women than ever before identifying as lesbian and bisexual. We should be pleased that people feel able to be their true selves, but it also puts to bed the lie that young lesbians are being forced to become trans men.
Finally, it is important to remember that many of the rights that queer people have now are relatively recent. The last Labour Government is quite rightly often remembered as a time of progress for LGBTQ+ people, but just as rights can be won, they can be lost. This Labour Government risks being remembered as a period when things went backwards for our community. We have only been in government for less than a year. It is possible to turn the ship around, but we must recognise that actions such as the blanket ban on puberty blockers and barring trans women from women’s spaces are dangerous steps in the wrong direction. We must take action to remedy them.
Dawn Butler (in the Chair)
I call Liv Bailey. I am very mindful that we have a vote coming up shortly, so I may have to stop you mid-speech, Liv.
Olivia Bailey (Reading West and Mid Berkshire) (Lab)
No problem. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Butler. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow and Gateshead East (Kate Osborne) for securing this debate: she is a fantastic champion of our community and I thank her for all that she does.
It is a wonderful privilege to speak in this debate today as a proud lesbian MP. I am an historian by trade and I particularly enjoy learning about the social history of our country and of the everyday people who organised, agitated and persisted to deliver the enormous social change that we have witnessed over the past few centuries, but it has always struck me that there was something not quite right about the books that I have pored over, which is that lesbians are completely missing. Women who we might now look back on and suggest may have been lesbians or LGBTQ+ are brushed past. There are pages of unwritten sentences and of unheard stories. In the words of the historian Rebecca Jennings, lesbian history
“has frequently been associated with silence, invisibility, and denial”.
Her excellent book “A Lesbian History of Britain” contains many examples that I will draw on today.
Throughout our history, lesbians have been forced to hide their love and their relationships out of fear, and it is no surprise that so few records exist. But I will admit to being somewhat surprised by the pains to which historians have gone to explain away what seems quite obvious. Two women in the late 1700s who eloped to Wales, shared a bed and addressed each other as “my beloved” in their correspondence were described by historians as having a “romantic friendship”, but not one that was intimate. I do not dispute the power of a friendship between women, but that seems a stretch.
The discovery of Anne Lister’s diaries in the 1980s, which were carefully written in an ancient Greek code, were a turning point. She had the courage to document her relationships with women. The discovery of her diaries shattered the historical conspiracy to erase us. When I think about the women throughout our history who might now be stood proudly with us as lesbians but who did not have the power that we do of rights, an identity and a community, I think the most important thing we can do is tell our stories and be proud of who we are. We must never underestimate the power of being seen.
The theme of Lesbian Visibility Week this year is rainbow families. It is fantastic to celebrate all the families with LGBTQ+ parents. I know from my own experience of adopting my children that there is absolutely nothing more precious than having the opportunity to be a mum. My boys are the best thing that will ever happen to me. Growing up, I could never have imagined the possibility of being a mum, but being a family that turns heads is not always easy. I should not have had to hurry my family away from aggressive shouting in the street. I should not have to monitor every turned head in the street to see whether I will be met with a smile or a frown. And it should not feel like I am staging my own small act of rebellion every time I hold hands with my wife at the school gate.
Ms Billington
In the context of my hon. Friend’s experience as a lesbian mother, will she consider the experience of lesbian mothers in their 70s and 80s, mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Tipton and Wednesbury (Antonia Bance)? Does she agree with me and my hon. Friend that there is an argument now for an apology to those mothers, who experienced not just shouting in the street but institutional attacks on their right to family life as a result not of the law, but of the prejudice of the courts?
Olivia Bailey
Absolutely, and I thank my hon. Friend very much for that intervention.
I am very proud to be an out lesbian MP, and I am prouder than words can describe of my family. With the privilege of the position that I have in this place, I will do my best to be seen to be myself, because that is the best way to honour those who have come before us and to ensure that, for those who come after, being a lesbian, being LGBTQ+ or being a rainbow family is finally non-remarkable. When the historians pen the books about our small window of time, it is not just that our whole lives will be documented but that it will be possible to read about them without a single sign of shame or controversy, because we deserve nothing less.
Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms Butler. I congratulate the hon. Member for Jarrow and Gateshead East (Kate Osborne) for securing this vital debate and for her excellent speech. It is wonderful to hear from so many sisters across the House. Lesbian visibility matters because representation brings understanding, and understanding brings change. I want to talk about the inequalities that lesbians still face, the value of community and safe spaces, and what we as legislators can do to ensure that lesbians are not just seen but heard, respected and supported.
But before I do, I want to take a moment to celebrate a woman who spent her life working for lesbian rights and visibility. I was delighted to learn that earlier this year, Studio Voltaire and the London LGBT+ Forums’ Network unveiled a rainbow plaque honouring the inspirational Jackie Forster outside her former London home. After her death, it was said that if she had served a cause other than lesbian rights, she would have been festooned with honours. She would have been called Dame Jackie Forster. So courageous was she that, in 1969, she came out by announcing to the world at Speakers’ Corner,
“You are looking at a roaring dyke”,
a name I often get called.
Jackie was daring and unapologetic, and we must ensure that her fortitude and her legacy continue. Jackie spearheaded the launch of the triumphant and bold 1970s lesbian magazine, Sappho, a publication that reached out to women suffering crippling isolation at a time when the pressure of heterosexual compliance was high. Sappho created a much needed safe forum that allowed women to realise that they were not freakish outcasts or mentally unwell; they were lesbians, and there were many other women like them.
Fifty years on, in 2023, University College London published a sobering study showing that LGB individuals are three times more likely to self-harm and twice as likely to experience suicidal thoughts compared with heterosexual people. Within that group, lesbians face specific and significant mental health challenges, ranging from increased rates of depression to internalised self-hate. These challenges are even more pronounced among those who have not felt able to disclose their sexual orientation. The mental health inequalities that lesbians face stem in large part from what has been called “minority stress”.
Sarah Dyke
As I was saying before I was so rudely interrupted by the Division bell, the mental health inequalities that lesbians face stem in large part from what has been called “minority stress”, which is the strain of navigating a world that too often marginalises or misunderstands them. Internalised stigma, fear of rejection and the emotional toll of either concealing or repeatedly disclosing one’s identity all contribute. But there is a powerful antidote: community, a sense of belonging, support from others who understand. That is why lesbian spaces matter.
Lesbian bars, clubs and social venues have long provided a sanctuary—a space to be oneself, free from judgment or hyper-sexualization, free from the male gaze or a society that does not always understand. Yet in many parts of the UK and across the west, lesbian venues are vanishing. The 1990s saw a surge of women-only spaces in London including First Out, the Candy Bar, Vespa, Glass Bar, Due South and Oak Bar, many of which I have frequented. Sadly, they had all closed by 2015. In Amsterdam, a city long seen as a beacon of LGBT+ inclusion, one of the last lesbian bars, Vivelavie, closed in 2017 after nearly four decades.
A recent survey of more than 500 lesbians showed that 96% were concerned about the loss of lesbian spaces and community groups. This must act as a wake-up call. We need better research into this decline and greater innovation in how we support and preserve lesbian-only spaces and communities, both physical and digital.
We must also address how media, particularly online pornography, contributes to the damaging stereotyping of lesbians. Lesbian porn is consistently among the most-searched categories on mainstream sites, yet the portrayals are not reflective of reality. Instead, they are often harmful and degrading, and they distort how lesbians are perceived by others, and worse still, by themselves. Increasingly, young same-sex attracted women are distancing themselves from the term “lesbian” due to its association with those harmful tropes. Our education system must respond. It is essential that we reform relationships and sex education not only to protect children from the harms of online pornography, but to challenge these stereotypes and promote positive and diverse lesbian role models, because every child deserves to see someone like them reflected in the world around them.
Internationally, we must not turn a blind eye. In many countries, same-sex attraction remains a criminal offence and, in some cases, lesbians face abhorrent violence. The 2008 brutal gang rape and murder of South African footballer Eudy Simelane shone a light on the horror of so-called “corrective rape”, a hate crime that is still reported around the world, especially in the global south. The UK must be a leader in global human rights, pushing for decriminalisation and protection for same-sex-attracted people around the world.
Lesbians also face different challenges when they begin to consider starting a family. All LGBTQ+ people deserve equitable access to the reproductive healthcare services they need, but inequalities persist and must be addressed urgently. Only three of the 42 ICBs in England give female same-sex couples access to fertility funding, while others give access to funding to women who have not conceived after two years of unprotected intercourse, or six to 12 self-funded rounds of artificial insemination. That is clearly discriminatory.
One cycle of IVF costs about £5,000 or more, so some women will need to find in excess of £30,000 to start a family. Some are so desperate to start their family that they are forced to seek alternative, often dangerous routes, where they put themselves physically, psychologically and legally at risk. As always, the costs of those risks far outweigh the costs of their fertility treatment. The Liberal Democrats will therefore push for an integrated care body to make this change a priority, to ensure that equitable access to IVF is available for all lesbian couples who are looking to start their own family.
Let me end on a note of hope. The British social attitudes survey shows our country has become significantly more open and accepting. In 1983, 17% of people believed that same-sex relationships were not wrong at all. In 2023, that figure stood at 67%. And those who say same-sex relationships are always wrong has plummeted from 50% to just 9%. Such progress matters. It helps to make people feel safer, more accepted and more empowered to live openly and authentically. Liberal Democrats believe in a freer, fairer and more compassionate society. That includes recognising and uplifting lesbian voices, protecting lesbian culture and ensuring that everybody, especially those who are most marginalised in our communities, feel safe, supported and seen.
Mims Davies (East Grinstead and Uckfield) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Butler. I thank the hon. Member for Jarrow and Gateshead East (Kate Osborne) for securing this debate and all Members for their important contributions. It is always a pleasure to speak on behalf of His Majesty’s loyal Opposition.
Today has been a real celebration of the role of lesbians in our society and the contribution we can all make, irrespective of who we are and who we love. That should be no different whoever we may be. I am very proud of our party’s action on civil partnerships and equal marriage. It is important to recognise that around 1.2% of women identify as lesbian. The hon. Member for Jarrow and Gateshead was with her uncle just last night in East Grinstead as we celebrated Rotary’s 39th birthday. We have different views on politics, but representation for all is something we very much agree on, so it is a pleasure to speak in this debate.
It is also a pleasure to speak opposite the Minister for Equalities, the hon. Member for Llanelli (Dame Nia Griffith), who has shared her sexuality openly for many years, and added real value to this House since 2016 while sharing her personal journey. What is so amazing about being in this House is that we can share our personal journeys, our friends and families, and that enriches our debates.
I want to celebrate some party colleagues of mine who made their contributions at the very top in Cabinet. Conservative Justine Greening became the first lesbian Cabinet Minister in 2016. As she memorably put it:
“I campaigned for Stronger In but sometimes you’re better off out!”
Movingly, she said afterwards:
“It really struck me in my constituency how many parents wrote to me saying: thank you because you made it easier for my child at school.”
As many others have said, having visible role models is vital. Many women today are visible role models, making it easier for people to discover their true selves, which is what this week is really about.
Wider society having come so far, it is astounding that my former colleague Margot James, who was the MP for Stourbridge, was not only the first out Conservative lesbian MP, but the first MP to be out before her election back in 2010. I am pleased to see many others across this House continuing to come forward and being proudly who they are.
It was in 2011 that the Scottish Conservatives elected the first openly gay or lesbian leader of a mainstream political party, the magnificent Ruth Davidson. As a proud Unionist, it is hard to overstate the debt owed to Ruth for keeping nationalism at bay and Scotland’s precious place in our Union. I notice that there are former colleagues in the room today who may feel differently, but being proudly who they are is surely something that unites. I am proud that we to continue to have the voice of Scotland in this place, for our party or otherwise.
Today in the shadow equalities team, we are ably supported by the first out peer, Baroness Stedman-Scott, whose contribution as a Minister in various Departments, not least to our shared work in the Department for Work and Pensions, was second to none. I apologise for continuing with the slightly backwards glance—I am conscious that I am very much on my own today as the only member of my party here—but I was proud, when part of Government, not only to work alongside the inspirational women I have mentioned, but to work with them on policy.
We see people who are out and proud, such as the author Jaqueline Wilson and the TV presenters Sue Perkins, Sandi Toksvig and the wonderful Clare Balding. It is brilliant for us to see out and proud lesbian women on our screens.
The hon. Member for East Thanet (Ms Billington), who is not in her place, spoke about guidance and help for young girls. That is very much needed. I enjoyed her welcome contributions. The hon. Member for Reading West and Mid Berkshire (Olivia Bailey) spoke about the historic gaps, which was very powerful, and about the power of being seen and the challenge of being a visible lesbian mother. I thank her for sharing that today.
As we heard from the hon. Member for Jarrow and Gateshead East, the theme of this year’s Lesbian Visibility Week is rainbow families. As a single parent—a straight woman, but a single parent—who quite often feels that people judge the shape of my family, I understand that. Access to fertility care, a theme of this year’s Lesbian Visibility Day, was actively worked on under the Conservative Government through the women’s health strategy, which removed barriers and requirements to prove infertility before access to IVF treatment. The regulations announced by Maria Caulfield, the former MP for the Lewes area, which I now partially represent, and the Health Minister at the time, came into effect last November and scrapped various tests for reciprocal IVF that potentially added an additional £1,000 to the cost of the treatment course. That cost has been mentioned today.
As far as I can see, the women’s health strategy has been somewhat scrapped. Perhaps the Minister can confirm where the Labour Government are on that and assure the House that work is continuing in that area. That was touched on by the hon. Member for Nottingham East (Nadia Whittome), who asked for clarity around the women’s health strategy. We agree on that, and I too look forward to the revised NICE guidance in that regard.
Removing barriers to IVF is important, but, as we have heard today, that is only one route for family formation. One in five adopted children are adopted by LGBT+ parents. When the necessary changes in the law were so recent, it is remarkable that we have come so far. Having a child in the right loving home can make an amazing contribution and difference, which is truly wonderful to see. I hope the Minister will use her good offices to push her Government on the women’s health strategy.
The modern iteration of Lesbian Visibility Week is quite new, as the hon. Member for Jarrow and Gateshead East said in opening the debate, having been founded in 2020. Given the, dare I say newly understood, ambiguities in the Equality Act and elsewhere, it was no surprise that last year’s debate got somewhat heated and entangled around biological sex, as we can probably remember. For many women, a lesbian—a same-sex attracted biological woman, of course—should not have her identity subsumed among other identities. I think all of us in the Chamber today can be very clear that we support others and how they identify, and that is perfectly valid. It is important not to allow this to continue to be toxic or hateful, and for any lesbian to feel that they need to identify in any other way.
Indeed, those points were made by organisations and submissions to the court ahead of this week’s landmark ruling; I am thinking particularly of the Scottish Lesbians and The Lesbian Project, which allows me to talk about the importance of Kate Harris and the LGB Alliance. She was greatly moved by having to defend the very definition of what a lesbian is in court, and I had the pleasure of chatting to her not that long ago at an event celebrating the Equality Act. It has been reported in the media recently that lesbian-only spaces have been forced underground or cancelled entirely for women who to stick to this view, which the hon. Member for Glastonbury and Somerton (Sarah Dyke) spoke about. Those places all sound marvellous, I must say.
This week we, the official Opposition, have roundly welcomed the Supreme Court’s ruling, which has given much-needed clarity on the Equality Act. It will rightly allow lesbian-only spaces where they are free from intimidation and threats of cancellation. That has been very evident today in this afternoon’s debate. We await guidance from the various bodies, directed by the Labour Government. Perhaps the Minister will say more about this, but hopefully, as the Minister for Women and Equalities has promised, that will be produced at pace. I hope it gives clarity on the law and in practice, which is exactly what the debate is about today. Our communities and our opportunities for lesbian women or any women must be fair, equal and safe. Women’s rights and freedoms cannot and must not be eroded, but celebrated and protected, particularly as we approach the 100th anniversary of universal suffrage.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Dame Nia Griffith)
It is an immense pleasure to see you in the Chair, Ms Butler. You have always been a fantastic ally of the lesbian community and the LGBT+ community. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow and Gateshead East (Kate Osborne) for organising us all to stay on a Thursday afternoon to debate this very important topic, and for the other events she has been instrumental in organising for Lesbian Visibility Week. She has an amazing track record. She never looks old enough—she might be mis-aged sometimes—to have been around to fight against clause 28. More recently, she has become known for her campaigning on equal access to help with fertility. She has reminded us again of our commitments to ensure that LGBT hate crime becomes an aggravated offence, and that we go forward with our ban on conversion practices.
To be seen, known and accepted for who we truly are is not just a privilege but a fundamental human need. Not so long ago, women who did not fit into the expectations of traditional family life were denied that need. To be a lesbian or bisexual woman was to face the choice between conformity and the risk of isolation, discrimination and violence. We were told we were not real women, and that it was just a phase, while simultaneously experiencing sexualisation by male-dominated media—and that was when we were seen at all. Even at the height of the homophobic panic of the ’80s and ’90s press, we were largely erased, with the focus on gay and bisexual men as the true threat. Our opponents often sought to erase or trivialise us, in spite of the tremendous solidarity that many lesbians showed to their GBT allies and friends.
I pay tribute to colleagues who have raised issues today. My hon. Friend the Member for Tipton and Wednesbury (Antonia Bance) set out the cases of the women whose children were taken from them by court judgments, no doubt influenced by the prejudices of the time. I will certainly take back her request for an apology on that particular issue. She also highlighted the importance of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008, passed by the then Labour Government, in terms of lesbian recognition.
My hon. Friend the Member for Reading West and Mid Berkshire (Olivia Bailey) referred to the ladies of Llangollen—although I note that she carefully avoided saying Llangollen. The point is a serious one, which is that when we read through the history books, lesbians are invisible. That is why the idea of a visibility week is so powerful. My hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire and Bedworth (Rachel Taylor) emphasised the discrimination that families can face. She referred to a second family being started, and the questioning and refusal of fertility treatment that then ensued.
My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham East (Nadia Whittome) made a very impassioned speech, really putting on the record how absolutely horrific, uncalled for and unjustified the prejudice we have seen against trans women is. She made it very clear that the violence that women, and indeed trans women, experience is 99.9% from cis men. My hon. Friend the Member for East Thanet (Ms Billington) mentioned the importance of LGBT+ inclusive education in supporting students who want to question their identity, and in bringing a greater and broader understanding by everyone in society of all of us in society.
The Lib Dem spokeswoman, the hon. Member for Glastonbury and Somerton (Sarah Dyke), spoke powerfully of Jackie Forster flying the flag for lesbians back in 1969—a time when that was very difficult. She reminded us that, 50 years on, the mental health challenges faced by lesbians are significantly greater than those faced by the population in general. The hon. Member referred to the horrors of the harmful and degrading portrayal of lesbians on the internet, as well as making the case again for greater equality and access to fertility treatments.
The Opposition spokeswomen, the hon. Member for East Grinstead and Uckfield (Mims Davies), spoke eloquently of her former colleagues, Justine Greening, Margot James, and Ruth Davidson, as well as her current colleague, Baroness Stedman-Scott. The hon. Member asked about the women’s health strategy, and I can assure her that we are continuing our work with NHS England and the women’s health ambassador to implement the strategy.
It is really important to remember those who did come before us, as many Members have done in this debate. For me, the late Member for Northampton North, Maureen Colquhoun, is an integral part of the story of lesbian women in this country and in this Parliament. Maureen was a woman ahead of her time. In 1973, while she was the Labour MP for Northampton North, she took the impossibly brave step of coming out of the closet. The scale of hatred, fear and ridicule that fell upon her is hard to imagine, and yet in 1974, she achieved re-election with a larger majority. However, the pervasive ignorance and discrimination that defined attitudes to homosexuality at the time could not be overcome. Her sexuality and her commitment to women’s rights saw her own constituency party deselect her, and she did not return to Parliament after the 1979 election. At a time when hostility was the norm and lesbian role models were almost non-existent, her refusal to be erased is nothing short of heroic, and I am proud to remember her in this debate.
Today, the visibility of lesbian and bisexual women is greater than ever. Whether it be singers, sports heroes or fictional couples, young women in our community have more visibility and role models than before. However, despite that progress, compared with the media exposure and visibility of gay and bisexual men, we still lag behind and we are still subject to clichés and ignorance. That is why it is so important that people like Linda Riley, founder of Lesbian Visibility Week, have sought to address the imbalance by providing a platform for lesbian women to celebrate their achievements and share their experiences. Linda has helped countless people to feel part of a community.
As we continue to work towards meaningful visibility and equality, it is also essential that we have legal clarity on the rights of women, including lesbian women, to single-sex spaces and services. Last week’s ruling by the Supreme Court in the case of For Women Scotland Ltd v. The Scottish Ministers confirms that the definition of woman in the Equality Act 2010 refers to biological sex. I want to highlight the remarks made by the Minister for Women and Equalities, my right hon. Friend the Member for Houghton and Sunderland South (Bridget Phillipson), to provide reassurance following the ruling that trans people will also continue to be protected. The Government are clear: trans people deserve safety, opportunity and respect. There remain protections in place for trans people to live free from discrimination and harassment, and have their acquired gender recognised. Trans people will still be protected on the basis of gender reassignment, which is a protected characteristic.
Lesbian women have always stood in solidarity with gay men and trans people, from the frontlines of the HIV/AIDS epidemic to today’s shared struggles for equality. I strongly recommend and encourage that unwavering allyship at this time of uncertainty for many within the LGBT+ community.
Previous Labour Governments have driven forward equality, and this Labour Government are no different. We will reverse the backsliding and politics of division that we unfortunately saw under the previous Government, although I do not include the Front-Bench spokeswoman, the hon. Member for East Grinstead and Uckfield, in that comment. We will certainly push progress forward once more for the entire LGBT+ community.
Take conversion practices, for example. Recently I was privileged to visit Galop, which operates the Government-funded victim support service for people who have or are in danger of experiencing conversion practices. I heard the deeply troubling experiences of young people subjected to such abusive practices, and I was reminded of the very real attempts, not just to erase our community but to delegitimise our existence. The Government are clear: conversion practices are abuse. They don’t work, and they inflict deep and lasting harm on victims. The fact that such acts continue to occur in our society, which is largely accepting of LGBT+ people, demeans us all.
The previous Government failed to act. This Government will not. That is why we committed in the King’s Speech to publishing draft legislation to introduce a fully trans-inclusive ban on conversion practices. Of course, any ban must be carefully designed to ensure that it does not inadvertently criminalise legitimate psychological support, non-directive counselling, or support for those who are exploring their sexual orientation or gender identity. We are also working to strengthen legal protections for lesbians. That is why we are working with the Home Office to equalise all hate crime strands, ensuring that lesbians, and indeed the entire LGBT+ community, receive the same protections under the law as other groups targeted by hate.
Equality must mean more than just words. It must mean action to protect the most vulnerable in our community. We know that LGBT+ people are disproportionately affected by homelessness compared with their heterosexual peers. Some studies suggest that as many as one in five LGBT+ people have experienced homelessness at some point in their life, and women are particularly vulnerable to the difficult and often dangerous reality faced by those without a home. The Government are committed to tackling all forms of homelessness, including LGBT+ homelessness. That is why we will establish a dedicated inter-ministerial group, chaired by the Deputy Prime Minister, to bring together Ministers from across Government to develop a long-term strategy to end homelessness for good.
Although visibility has grown and some barriers have fallen, lesbians still face unacceptable disparities in health and wellbeing. According to the Government Equalities Office, lesbian women are more likely to report long-term mental health issues than their heterosexual peers, and many report avoiding healthcare altogether due to a fear of discrimination, or previous poor treatment. Lesbian women are also less likely to attend cervical screening appointments, in part due to outdated assumptions and dangerous misconceptions that they are not at risk. Too many lesbians still face invasive questioning and unequal treatment when engaging with the healthcare system. Health should not be determined by sexuality, and that is why the Government are committed to closing the health gap. We will work with public health bodies to ensure that lesbian women are no longer invisible in data or ignored in care.
The theme of this year’s Lesbian Visibility Week is rainbow families. The previous Labour Government introduced the Adoption and Children Act 2022 to allow same-sex couples to adopt for the first time. That momentous legislation has seen thousands of children find loving homes in which to grow up, and has afforded the joys and challenges of parenthood to many LGBT+ people.
I recently had the honour of being at the reception hosted by DIVA and the London Women’s Clinic for the launch of their latest in vitro fertilisation manifesto, and this week I participated in an event with Stonewall for the presentation of its family formation guide. For so many, parenthood is the most significant journey that they will ever embark on, yet too many lesbian and bisexual women’s journeys to motherhood are still complicated by ignorance and practical obstacles, including problems accessing NHS fertility treatment. Although we have made great strides in assisted reproductive technologies, including IVF and intrauterine insemination, we must now ensure equal access to those treatments by removing unnecessary obstacles and advocate for a health service that treats all users with respect and dignity.
Ensuring that LGBT+ people feel welcomed in the health service is a key pillar of what the Government stand for. For too long, LGBT+ women have been priced out of having a family through fertility treatment, and NHS provision has depended on the luxury of having a postcode in the right area. The Government are ambitious about addressing those inequalities as part of our new health mission and through our commitment to make the health service work for its users. Last year, the Government finalised legislation that removed the additional screening costs that same-sex couples face when undertaking shared motherhood, simply for being an LGBT+ couple. Removing unnecessary burdens such as excess fees is extremely important in paving the way for full IVF equality.
Furthermore, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence is currently reviewing its fertility guidelines, which aim to reduce variations in practice and improve the way that fertility problems are managed. We expect that to be published towards the end of this year, and we encourage integrated care boards to improve their offer to fertility patients in anticipation of and after receiving the new guidelines.
Finally, I emphasise the Government’s commitment to equality beyond our borders. We are proud to defend LGBT+ rights worldwide. As members of the Equal Rights Coalition, we stand alongside those fighting for freedom in countries where being LGBT+ is still a crime. Our global LGBT+ rights programme is helping to improve political, social and economic empowerment by addressing outdated discriminatory laws, promoting protective legislation, enabling local civil society organisations and supporting the most vulnerable LGBT+ people in conflict and crisis areas.
We have come a long way from the days of Maureen Colquhoun’s lone voice. Today, one in 10 Members of this House of Commons identifies as LGBT+—more than any other Parliament in the world—and yet that progress is threatened by renewed attacks on the legitimacy of our lives and our rights, by the inequalities that lesbians still face, compared with their heterosexual peers, across physical and mental health, and by the lack of secure housing and protection from deeply traumatic conversion practices and hate crimes. In such times, we should look to the Maureen Colquhouns and Linda Rileys of this world for inspiration. When the world tried to hide and vilify us, they stood up, because for progress to be realised, we must not hide; we must not retreat. We must be seen and heard, and answer the politics of division with unity.
Dawn Butler (in the Chair)
It is nice to see so many Members turn up for the wind-ups.
Kate Osborne
I thank all who spoke here and ensured that they did so with respect and care. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Tipton and Wednesbury (Antonia Bance) for sharing her proud lesbian mama status, and for her commitment to fight for equal access to IVF, and for highlighting the local impact of the postcode lottery in fertility treatment. I am sure we will continue to fight that together in this place. I do not have time to thank everybody as much as I would like to, but I would like to thank Opposition Members, especially the hon. Member for Glastonbury and Somerton (Sarah Dyke), for highlighting the legend and legacy of Jackie Forster and her contribution on global hate crime and the stress that our communities face. Somehow we have never bumped into each other in any of those bars that you mentioned; we must try harder to do that. The hon. Member is quite right: we need more lesbian bars and lesbian spaces.
I thank the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for East Grinstead and Uckfield (Mims Davies), for her words. My uncle Frank and my dad will be absolutely delighted that she mentioned them today. He wants recognition for his 50 years as a councillor, and I hope that this goes some way to doing that. I agree that we will all be looking very closely at the NICE guidelines when they are brought forward. This debate has indeed been a lot less heated, which is to be welcomed, and I hope that continues, going forward, and that politicians of all stripes stop using our community as a political football. I thank the Minister for all the work that she has done and continues to do, for her kind words, and for her commitment to take away the many asks from this debate. Thank you, Ms Butler, for your expert chairmanship, I hope to be here in front of you in the future.
By our visibility and contributions today, we give hope and encouragement to lesbians who are not yet in a position to be out and proud, or who are at the start of their journey. Our hard-fought rights are under attack and we must defend them. I want to end by wishing all lesbians who work in this House, and all lesbians globally, a very happy Lesbian Visibility Week.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered Lesbian Visibility Week.
EU Trading Relationship
(1 day, 9 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Andrew Lewin (Welwyn Hatfield) (Lab) [R]
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the trading relationship with the EU.
I declare an interest as the chair of the UK Trade and Business Commission. I am grateful to the Backbench Business Committee for granting this debate, and to colleagues on both sides of the House who supported the application.
It has never been so timely to talk trade, but before we look forward, we need to look back at how we arrived here. It has been 4,744 days since Prime Minister David Cameron promised the country a referendum on our future relationship with the European Union: in his words, a
“simple in or out choice”.
Ever since, the UK’s relationship with the European Union has been anything but simple.
In the decade that followed Cameron’s speech, successive Conservative Governments did everything in their power to distance the UK from our largest trading partner. In 2020, the trade and co-operation agreement was signed with an ideological zeal to diverge as much as possible from the EU. Agreed by the Conservatives and cheered on by Reform, it is a choice that we are all paying for. According to the Office for Budget Responsibility, the barriers to trade that were put up by leaving the EU have set the UK economy on course to lose more than £100 billion over the medium term. The London School of Economics has found that the increased barriers to trade have left the average person paying £250 more every year on their food shop.
Repairing the UK’s trading relationship with the EU is all the more important given the dramatic change in the position of the United States. Our Government deserve praise for their calm and measured response to tariffs, but none of us can presume to know what the position of the White House will be in six days, let alone in six months. By contrast, it is certain that the EU will remain the UK’s largest trading partner. The EU accounts for 42% of UK exports and 52% of imports. That is our most essential trading partnership.
I welcome all that the Labour Government have done in our first nine months to begin to repair and reset that relationship. Ours was the first Chancellor to attend a Eurogroup meeting since Brexit, and the Prime Minister has been in lockstep with fellow European leaders in shared support of Ukraine. The leadership of the Prime Minister and the Chancellor has established the opportunity for a substantive change in UK-EU relations, but it is vital that we seize that opportunity. I want to see the most ambitious trading deal possible and will focus my remarks on three points: first, the importance of a deal that includes mutual recognition of conformity assessments; secondly, the case for deep alignment between the UK and EU on goods and services; and thirdly, a bespoke visa-based youth mobility deal.
One of the failings of the trade and co-operation agreement was the lack of a mutual recognition agreement on conformity assessments, which are used to determine whether a product meets a country’s regulations for goods and to ensure safety, performance and compliance with legislative requirements. Conformity markings include the UK conformity assessed mark and the EU’s CE mark. With a mutual recognition agreement, countries that recognise each other’s conformity assessment bodies and procedures avoid duplication of testing and certification for goods. Without such an agreement, products made in the UK and intended for the EU cannot be tested here, and vice versa. The EU has conformity assessment MRAs in place with countries including Switzerland, Australia, New Zealand, Japan and Canada. The UK has them with the USA, Switzerland, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. Last month, a coalition of 19 business groups, including the Confederation of British Industry, Make UK and techUK, called for a UK-EU mutual recognition agreement and said that it would support export-led growth, particularly for small and medium-sized enterprises. I look forward to hearing the practical steps that the Minister is taking to help make that a reality.
My second point is about alignment with the EU on goods and services. When the Conservatives signed the TCA, the winners were the ideologues who advocated for the UK to become a version of Singapore-on-Thames. The losers were our businesses, especially those exporting goods. The last Government made an active choice to diverge from European Union regulations and standards. If we listen to business, it does not take long to see the impact. The British Chambers of Commerce surveyed its members on how they had been affected by the TCA: they listed challenges for business from red tape, bureaucracy, paperwork and delays in goods flowing through customs. Recently, the Chartered Institute of Export and International Trade has found that that has caused a staggering 2 billion extra pieces of paperwork for businesses since we left the EU.
Part of the answer must now come from closer alignment on goods and services once again. Earlier this year, Best for Britain commissioned Frontier Economics to model a scenario with
“an expansive approach to mutual recognition, in which the UK and the EU take active steps to minimise regulatory divergence and commit to recognising the equivalence of each other’s regulations.”
Catherine Fookes (Monmouthshire) (Lab)
At my recent business roundtable in Monmouthshire, I spoke to Tri-Wall, a business that exports to the EU. Instead of sending one lorryload of its goods to different countries all across the EU, it now has to send a different lorry to every country, which really increases its costs. Does my hon. Friend agree that we need closer alignment to avoid that kind of problem?
Andrew Lewin
I agree entirely. I have heard far too many stories exactly like that in communities across the country.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
The hon. Gentleman is making a very good point. I have given up days of my life to helping to free up fish exporters from Shetland from red tape, but the truth is that although we have put friction into those exports, the standards are still broadly the same. It would not be that difficult, at this point in history, to get the necessary alignment, especially through a sanitary and phytosanitary agreement, for example. We are looking at a market that is important to us and in which we have similar standards—unlike across the Atlantic, where there are very different standards for food products.
Andrew Lewin
I defer to the right hon. Member’s expertise on the fishing sector, but he is absolutely right about the need for an SPS deal. I am proud that that was in the Labour manifesto on which I was elected and that we are actively seeking to pursue it.
According to the important work commissioned by Best for Britain, if we get a deep alignment, the modelled impact is a boost in UK GDP of 1% to 1.5%. If in parallel we pursue deep alignment in the services sector, the combined benefit could be more than 2% of UK GDP. To put that in context, every 1% of UK GDP is worth approximately £26 billion, so the potential prize is a £50 billion boost to the economy.
Finally, on youth mobility, hon. Members may have seen that 70 Labour parliamentarians put their names to a letter yesterday calling for a new, bespoke youth visa scheme for UK and EU citizens under 30. As with all the UK’s existing schemes, we believe that it should be time-limited and subject to a cap on numbers, but a bespoke scheme would extend new cultural, educational and economic opportunities to young people in the UK and the European Union.
Josh Dean (Hertford and Stortford) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making a fantastic speech. I declare an interest as a UK citizen under 30. Does he agree that the upcoming EU-UK summit on 19 May provides an ideal opportunity for the Government to look at proposals such as a youth mobility scheme, which would surely provide a better opportunity for young people in the United Kingdom to explore, learn and find opportunities across borders?
Andrew Lewin
I agree entirely with my hon. Friend and remain jealous of both his wisdom and his youth.
For a clear majority of people in this country, extending opportunities for young people matters. It is a move that will unlock further opportunities for trade and co-operation and will strengthen our bonds with the European Union in future. It is also vital to underline why it is materially different from freedom of movement. Under a visa scheme, people will have to apply in advance, numbers can and will be monitored, and any deal will follow a similar shape to the ones that this country already has in place with countries such as Australia, Canada and even Uruguay.
After so much damage done by the Conservatives, the Government deserve huge credit for all that they have done to repair relations with the European Union. It is our largest and most important trading relationship and so much is at stake. I hope that we can be as ambitious as possible for the reset. I look forward to hearing from colleagues and from the Minister.
Several hon. Members rose—
Sir Jeremy Wright (in the Chair)
Order. It will not have escaped anybody’s notice that this is a popular debate, so I remind all Members to continue to stand if they want to be called. The debate can run no later than 4.55 pm, which gives you about two and a half minutes each. I ask you to exercise some discipline, and we will get in as many Members as we can.
Stephen Gethins (Arbroath and Broughty Ferry) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy. It is good to see how popular this debate is with colleagues. I congratulate the hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Andrew Lewin) on securing it.
Leaving the EU has been devastating for our economy. A hard Tory Brexit, which unfortunately this Government have embraced, continues to be devastating for the economy. The economic impact, particularly for SMEs, is something that they continue to live with from day to day, and so is the impact of the withdrawal of freedom of movement on our food and drink industry, care services and the NHS. In fairness, Scottish Labour, of which the Minister is a member, has embraced the issue by talking about decentralising and a potential migration system for Scotland; I hope that the Minister will be able to support my Bill on that subject tomorrow. We have also seen an impact on security. Every other country in western Europe considers the EU and NATO twin pillars of their security in the aftermath of Russia’s aggression.
More than that, as the hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield says, there has been an impact on all our rights, and particularly those of young people. This political generation is leaving behind fewer rights than we enjoyed ourselves. My sympathies go to the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Josh Dean), who is under 30, because he enjoys fewer rights than the hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield and I did.
The hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield talks about a cap. A cap on whom? Which young people do not get the opportunities that he himself had and that the Minister had? We should all feel deeply ashamed and deeply uncomfortable.
It does not have to be like this. As The Economist has said, we could rejoin the customs union, giving the Exchequer an immediate boost very rapidly. We could rejoin the single market. Even pursuing the trade deal promised by the Conservatives—there are precious few of them here today to defend their deal—would see 0.4%, after a 4% hit to the economy.
Today, Labour MP after Labour MP is going to stand up and tell us how awful the Brexit deal is. We have been through it before. Are they actually going to do anything about it? Are their Government going to do anything about it? This is the biggest crisis—the biggest disaster—to hit the UK, economically, socially and rights-wise. Instead of doing anything, they have stuck the architect of this deal, Lord Gove, into the House of Lords. Can we please see some action?
Liam Byrne (Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Andrew Lewin) on securing this debate, on his superb speech and on the impact that he has made in this House.
We are all history’s witnesses to a radical reshaping of the western alliance. Yesterday, the United States Treasury Secretary said:
“‘America First’ does not mean America alone.”
But if we look beyond the rhetoric to the reality, it is very clear that what Churchill called the sinews of peace are now under tremendous strain. America is now exiting the multilateral alliances that it created under Presidents Roosevelt, Truman and Eisenhower between 1944 and 1960. What some have called Amexit must now force us to rethink Brexit. We have to look again at resetting our alliance with our closest neighbour.
I draw the House’s attention to the draft Green Paper that we think the Government should have published: the report published by the Business and Trade Committee on 4 April, which sets out 20 ways in which we think we can reset our relationship with our closest neighbour, spanning defence, regulation, energy co-operation, services and innovation. There are 20 measures across that space that could give us as big an economic boost as is needed to offset the cut from tariffs. They include an EU-UK defence pact, a shared industrial policy, a joint plan to defend critical national infrastructure and deeper co-operation to defend ourselves against economic threats; an ambitious sanitary and phytosanitary agreement, the mutual recognition of customs schemes and of conformity assessments, streamlining customs declarations at the border, enhancing co-operation at our ports and rejoining the pan-Euro-Mediterranean convention; and making sure that we have long-term regulatory road maps to maximise the alignment between sectors in our economy and in the EU. We found that there is widespread support for that across the business community in the UK, and in the European Union too.
The fourth big area is energy, which is one of the biggest opportunities for deeper co-operation between the UK and the EU. We need to avoid the cliff edge that may come when the carbon border adjustment mechanism is introduced in this country and Europe. We should join together to create a single CBAM. We should be linking our emissions trading schemes and reconnecting our electricity markets because that will ultimately help to drive down electricity costs in this country.
In the fifth area—services and innovation—it is clear that we have to secure a new data adequacy agreement. We have to advance co-operation in financial services and research, including by restoring mutual recognition of qualifications with a new road map that might actually make some progress. We have to strike a fair deal for our touring artists, and I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend about the need for a visa-based, time-limited and number-capped scheme for youth mobility—that is also in our mutual interest.
What surprised us most is that it was not difficult to find 20 different measures across those five areas of co-operation where we can deepen our future relationship. That reset is now imperative if we are to reset the UK’s power in the world and, crucially, deliver prosperity for the people we came here to serve.
Carla Denyer (Bristol Central) (Green)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Jeremy, and I thank the hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Andrew Lewin) for securing this important debate ahead of the UK-EU summit next month. The summit comes in the throes of alarming uncertainty created by President Trump’s dangerous, chaotic and authoritarian approach to trade and international relations. The Trump turmoil makes building close relationships with our EU neighbours even more urgent. We need to fix those relationships because the UK’s withdrawal from the EU has caused profound damage to our relationship with our nearest and biggest trading partner. I will not repeat the stats that Members have already highlighted, but I want to highlight that smaller firms are seeing the biggest fall in trade. I know that Brexit has caused major problems for independent local businesses in my Bristol Central constituency.
Mr Calvin Bailey (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)
The hon. Member is making an extremely powerful speech. On SMEs, does she recognise that the defence industry in Bristol suffers from the inability to receive adequate funding from across Europe, and that a defence, security and industrial bank underwritten by the UK, alongside its European partners, would be able to unlock the investment that Bristolian businesses vitally need?
Sir Jeremy Wright (in the Chair)
Order. Ideally, the hon. Gentleman would not sit there because there is no microphone and we are not picking him up. I am sure the hon. Lady heard him and can respond.
Carla Denyer
Thank you, Sir Jeremy. The hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr Bailey) spoke about defence industry businesses that are largely outside my constituency, so I am not familiar with the details, but it is an interesting point.
We need a bold and positive plan to get closer to the EU, rather than capitulation to an untrustworthy US President on vital trading standards and regulations. So far, the Government’s reset of the UK-EU relationship has had some good points, such as some useful moves on reducing border checks on agrifoods, mutual recognition of qualifications and addressing problems facing touring artists, but we must go further. In particular, there is huge mutual benefit to be gained from greater climate and energy co-operation to ensure improved energy security and the delivery of net zero at a lower cost, so I hope the Minister can assure us that that will be a central part of the UK-EU reset and the upcoming summit.
The UK has been falling sharply behind EU chemical safety laws post Brexit, which is a point of particular concern. As well as supporting closer trade ties with the EU, alignment with EU chemical safety protections would be beneficial for the UK by minimising costs to industry, as well as maintaining high environmental, worker and public health and safety standards. Ministers will be aware that the Trades Union Congress, representing millions of workers across the UK, has recently said that a closer trading relationship with the EU is “more important than ever” in an increasingly fraught and volatile world, and I agree.
The Green party is clear that the UK would be better off inside the EU. Like many others, we were frankly astonished to hear the now Prime Minister say, just days before the general election, that the UK would not rejoin the EU—not only during his premiership but in his entire lifetime. I think that was a remarkable thing to say.
Recognising that the UK will not rejoin the EU imminently, the Greens and I still feel that it would be wise for the UK to rebuild trust and links, and to break down those barriers with a view to rejoining the EU when the domestic and international situation makes that more viable. In the meantime, joining the customs union as a first step towards full EU membership would be vital, and a way of resolving many of the worst problems resulting from Brexit, not least the harm done to our trading relationship with the EU.
Several hon. Members rose—
Sir Jeremy Wright (in the Chair)
I reassure hon. Members that the clock is not correct—the hon. Lady was not talking for seven minutes.
Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)
This is an important and timely debate, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Andrew Lewin) for securing it.
Some will query why we need to have this debate in the first place. They should not. It has been nearly a decade since the European Union referendum and nothing looks the same after a decade—I can assure hon. Members of that. That is particularly the case for our country, and indeed for the world. I think the British people know that.
The political system has changed beyond all recognition. My politics have always been personal, and that is especially true for this subject. The question of whether to remain or leave split my family, just as it split so many others, particularly in my constituency. I would speak with my father every night. We would put the world to rights and talk about his issues and how politics often failed to meet them. He is no longer with us, so I cannot have those conversations any more. I must say, I would have loved to have known what he thought about this particular debate—because he backed Brexit.
As an immigrant son of the 1950s, he had seen the wreckage of war and appreciated an economic union that sustained peace. As a disabled man of the 2010s who lived the pain of poverty, he rejected a political sentiment that scarcely listened. He voted for Brexit not as an ideologue, but as a pragmatist. He asked, “What will make my hard life better?”—and for him, Brexit was the answer.
Now, when I call for closer UK-EU relations, I do so as my father’s son, not as an ideologue but as a pragmatist. Because when we ask that same question—“What will make life better?”—the answer is not this painful, exhausting Brexit deal. Instead, it is closer economic ties with our nearest neighbour and biggest trading partner.
To be clear, I do not criticise anybody who voted to leave, because I cannot criticise my father. I respect the choice and the reasons behind it, but as the MP for Bournemouth East, I cannot serve my constituents without doing all I can to make their lives better. We have to be frank: Brexit has led to our GDP growing 4% to 8% less than it would have between 2016 and 2024. We have seen a significant loss of job opportunities, and smaller firms are suffering the most.
We also know that closer ties with the European Union and its members can improve our prosperity at a time when we need it more than ever. Of course, we should assert our rights as an independent trading nation, rather than cowering in the corner, unhappy about having that independence. However, with that independence we must do what is right by our national interest. With Trump’s tariffs and a Chinese regime that is hard to trust, I believe that means a pragmatic approach to Europe. We should have a youth mobility scheme for work, study and travel that is balanced, time-limited and capped. We should have regulatory alignment to make aspects of trade easier, and we should have more aerospace collaboration. And we should ensure that UK firms and citizens can travel and work in Europe for longer, deepen security co-operation, and cut red tape.
In conclusion, this Government will not meet any of their goals—whether it is growing opportunities, achieving secure clean energy, ensuring opportunities for all or delivering safer streets—without closer economic ties with Europe. We are here to do the right thing for our constituents and to exercise our sovereignty, democracy and independence as a country. We believe that growth is the route to prosperity, and if trade is the route to growth, we have no other option but to have closer ties with Europe.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Jeremy. I thank the hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Andrew Lewin) for setting the scene so well.
I supported Brexit and voted for it, but unfortunately we in Northern Ireland did not get the Brexit that we voted for and that the rest of the United Kingdom got. We are stuck in the middle with no tangible benefit. We do not know whether my local firm, which has a large number of employees and ships its produce to the US, will be hit with untenable tariffs, as some of its products are sourced in the neighbouring Republic of Ireland. We do not know whether it can avail itself of the much friendlier UK tariff or whether EU retaliatory tariffs will be the death knell of its business. The sad thing is that this affects not just one business but a huge number throughout my constituency.
As we know, all businesses have an element of uncertainty, but the strain on exporters in Strangford is considerable. Any discussion of the trading relationship with the EU must note the difficult position that Northern Ireland is in until the EU ceases its death grip on the UK—the grip currently feels like a noose on the neck of Northern Ireland.
It has been said that the duty reimbursement scheme will be used to mitigate any effect on Northern Ireland, but the reality is that this scheme is time-consuming, and the delay in cash flow may not be sustainable for many traders. It is my firm opinion that any trade deal with the EU can only come with an end to the death grip of the Northern Ireland protocol, with an end to the red lane, with access to state aid and with a return to the UK-wide economy. That is what we need instead of being half in, half out, with duty paid and no representation given.
We have businesses in Northern Ireland that say they cannot continue to trade without sensible governance. I always try to be respectful to the Minister—it is the way I do things—and he will have his opinion, but he will have to go back to the Cabinet and ask the questions that need to be asked. Where is Northern Ireland situated in any enhanced trade with the EU? Will we be set to one side as an aggravating inconvenience? I believe that our Government must bring us back to a seat at the UK table once again.
Enhanced trade with the EU could be beneficial if it does not go against the Brexit decision, but the strangling of Northern Ireland must end. This House has a choice to make once again. I hope that this time the choice is made for the benefit of the entire United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
Mike Reader (Northampton South) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy. This debate comes at a critical time, given the upcoming UK-EU summit. This summer we are at the pinch point of the trade triangle, with the trade strategy, the small business strategy and the industrial strategy coming forward to give British businesses certainty. In my limited time, I will focus on the impact to my constituency and the logistics sector and share my personal experience in the construction industry.
One in five people in Northampton South work in the logistics sector, which is a linchpin of my local economy. I spend a lot of time going to warehouses and distribution centres to hear from small and large businesses about the challenges they face. The No. 1 issue that comes up is friction with the EU—the red tape and the uncertainty about licensing agreements. It is all of the issues that have been created by the botched deal that the Conservatives put forward. Businesses cannot see how we can fix things in the short term without a hard reset of our trading relationship with the EU.
Amanda Hack (North West Leicestershire) (Lab)
We have 20,000 people employed by the logistics sector in North West Leicestershire, in part because we have the second largest freight airport in the UK, with East Midlands airport being key to international trade. Does my hon. Friend agree that for constituents like ours, logistics needs effective trading relationships with the EU? The sector is key not only to our local economies but to long-term growth.
Mike Reader
My hon. Friend makes a fantastic point. A big thing that businesses make clear to me is that we have to approach this with humility. We also have to recognise the impact that Brexit has had on European businesses and the cost they face in trading with the UK. This is not a one-way issue; it impacts both ways, and it is a real problem that firms are facing. The border target operating model is a real issue, particularly for businesses importing agriculture and plants. I have a large food manufacturer in my constituency, and the No. 1 issue it raised with me is getting stuff in and out of the EU, which is a real challenge.
Turning to my personal experience, I worked in the construction sector all my life, and I was very fortunate to work on a number of projects across the EU, including the Ellinikon regeneration in Greece, major airports in Poland and the Dublin metro in Ireland. One of the challenges we had was mutual recognition of professional services. Professional services are one of the eight verticals in the industrial strategy.
The ability to export our professional services globally is a real benefit to the UK, but the lack of a mutual recognition agreement between the UK and the EU is hampering our ability to take Britain’s great expertise and skills into Europe. Architecture is a great example—the Conservatives tried to match up architecture through the trade and co-operation agreement, but it was not achievable. UK architects are unable to work in the EU on a fair and equal playing field with EU architects. It is a crazy situation.
As we go towards the UK summit, I hope the Government are considering how those negotiations can help to bolster the industrial strategy. Its eight core vertical sectors, including manufacturing, clean energy and professional services, need a robust and clear trading agreement with the EU. There is clear consensus in the room on having a very hard reset of that relationship, to make it easier for all our businesses. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Andrew Lewin) for securing this debate.
Brian Mathew (Melksham and Devizes) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Jeremy. I thank the hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Andrew Lewin) for securing today’s debate. Recent times have shown how important reliable friends are. To our west, a United States under Trump has shown a reckless willingness to sacrifice prosperity across the globe and use bullying tactics to secure a trade deal that may well damage British interests. This could see a weakening of high British food standards, which would be to the detriment of our health, our farmers, our farm animals and, most importantly, our tastebuds and morals.
Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)
The previous Conservative Government’s botched deal with Europe has strangled trade and investment in British farming. Rural communities and farmers in Glastonbury and Somerton have been badly let down. Does my hon. Friend agree that we should put the UK into a position of strength by forming a new and bespoke customs union with the EU that will unleash the potential of British farming in the UK?
Brian Mathew
I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention and I am heartily in agreement. I have visited many farms across Melksham and Devizes, and it is clear that British farmers work incredibly hard to ensure that our food is high quality and produced to high welfare standards. We do not want British farmers or British consumers to be confronted with US chlorinated chicken or US hormone-treated beef in our supermarkets. Instead, we should look to trade with our partners who respect our standards and can provide a stable foundation on which to grow the UK economy. The European Union provides that, from logistics to standards. Trade with the European Union makes sense, which is why we must look to improve our relations with the world’s largest trading bloc. I echo the calls of my colleagues for the Government to urgently work towards a new customs union by 2030.
From cheese to cask ale, there are a number of companies producing great British products in Melksham and Devizes. A positive export market with our closest neighbours is vital to allow such companies the opportunity to grow and expand into an international market. Today I spoke with Darren Larvin, managing director of local cheese manufacturer Coombe Castle International. He told me that his company exports right across Europe to the Netherlands, Lithuania, Spain, France and Germany. His company has won four Queen’s awards and one King’s award for export. The experience of Brexit has not put his company off exporting to Europe, but it has made it harder and has cut margins. Prior to 2016, Darren told me, it was as easy for him to send his company’s produce to Germany as it was to Manchester. It is surely time for us, as a country, to wake up and smell the very good European coffee and rebuild our relationship with the EU.
Ben Goldsborough (South Norfolk) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Jeremy. I, too, thank my hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Andrew Lewin) for securing this debate, in which he has spoken with passion and insight. I know that his constituents, and indeed many people across the country, care deeply about our future relationship with the European Union.
In South Norfolk, this relationship is not abstract but tangible. It is in the labs of the Quadram Institute, the Sainsbury Laboratory, the Earlham Institute and the John Innes Centre—the world-leading institutions that make up Norwich Research Park and whose discoveries in genomics, health and crop science are shaping the future. Innovation does not happen in isolation, and a more pragmatic relationship with the EU would allow those centres to collaborate more freely, access essential data and funding streams, and unlock discoveries that could change our lives for the better.
In Hethel, Lotus Cars is preparing for the next generation of electric vehicles. An opportunity is opening up, with European consumers losing faith in Tesla; with fewer trade barriers, Lotus can step into that gap and become a leader in the EV market across the continent.
Our farmers, too, are watching closely. South Norfolk grows and rears some of the best British produce. With a market worth $2 trillion lying just over the channel, we should be exporting more of our food, not less. A sanitary and phytosanitary agreement—sensible, simple alignment—would remove unnecessary barriers and allow our horticulture sectors to flourish, too.
Jobs, investment, international strength and, most importantly, economic growth in Norfolk and across the UK—that is what a closer pragmatic relationship with the EU can deliver. Let me say this, Sir Jeremy: people in Norfolk are not led by ideology. We are a practical bunch. If something works, great. If it does not—let’s fix it. This debate is not about going off at an ideological angle; it is about putting Britain first, taking control of our future once more and refusing to let the greatest nation on the planet be relegated to the status of a secondary power on the world stage.
Sir Jeremy Wright (in the Chair)
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for keeping to below two and a half minutes. However, not everybody has, so I am afraid we are going to have to go to sub two and a half minutes each if we are to get everybody in. I am loath to impose a formal time limit, so I ask colleagues to be as disciplined as they can.
Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy. I commend the hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Andrew Lewin) for his evidence-based opening remarks.
The Conservatives’ botched deal has been a disaster for Britain’s trade and our economic growth, and the majority now believe that it was a massive mistake by the Conservatives. Trade deals should be designed to streamline processes and reduce barriers, but the previous Government somehow managed to negotiate agreements that only added mountains of red tape for businesses. Since Brexit, 2 billion pieces of paperwork have been added to UK exporters—enough paper to come from 250,000 trees or go around the world nearly 15 times. This mountain of unnecessary bureaucracy holds back businesses from reaching new markets, hiring more workers here in the UK and contributing to our economy through taxes. The Office for Budget Responsibility has warned that our economy will be 4% smaller in the long run; since 2019, UK goods exports have grown by a mere 0.3% a year—far below the OECD average of 4.2%. Let us not forget the 20,000 small businesses that have simply stopped exporting to the EU because of the Conservatives’ red tape suffocating that part of their business.
We need closer alignment with the European Union. We need to work with our closest partners to boost our economy and create meaningful change. It will mean more public funds to pay for the services that nobody thinks are working any more, with new hospitals, more GP appointments, roads fixed and schools built.
Trump’s tariffs will hit our businesses in so many areas, particularly the automotive business. Will the Minister give us an update on the trade deal negotiations with the US and confirm that his Government, unlike the Conservatives, will act only in the national interest, and that we will not be bullied by Trump and Vance?
Phil Brickell (Bolton West) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Jeremy. Before I begin, I declare an interest as the secretary of the all-party parliamentary group on Germany. It is our country’s relationship with Germany—seen through the prism of the UK-EU relationship—that I will refer to today.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Andrew Lewin) for securing a debate that is both important and timely, and hope that colleagues will join me in celebrating the 50th anniversary of Bolton being twinned with Paderborn in Germany, which occurred last week. That twinning is a symbol of the deep civic relationship between my constituency and our European neighbours. It is a partnership that transcends political developments and is testament to our inescapable geography as a nation in Europe and as a large trading partner with the continent.
Our best course of action must be to protect ourselves from the erratic and unpredictable global headwinds of Donald Trump’s America and Xi Jinping’s China. That must mean strengthening our trading relationship with our nearest and largest economic partner, the European Union, and the 27 countries that make up that bloc of 450 million people. Analysis from Frontier Economics has suggested that deeper alignment between the UK and the EU on goods and services could offset the impact of tariffs on the UK, and even help our economy grow by 1.5%. In 2023 the EU still accounted for 42% of the UK’s total exports and 52% of our imports. Let me repeat that: over half of our imports, seven years after the referendum result. Europe remains the bedrock of British trade. Yet, can we really say that we are currently taking full advantage of having such a huge market for British goods on our doorstep? Many British regions can have productive relationships with European partners. Look at Siemens, a major German engineering firm which has invested heavily in Greater Manchester’s advanced manufacturing sector.
Instead of resigning from the challenge ahead and relitigating debates from a decade ago, we should be breaking down barriers that are causing friction and stunting growth. But we must go further than focusing purely on the economics. I benefited immensely from my own lived experience as an Erasmus exchange student at the University of Hannover in Germany. That is why I firmly believe in a bright future for Britain as a nation that must grasp the opportunity on youth mobility with Europe. It is time to back British businesses, back British workers and back Britain’s rightful place as a key European nation.
Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy. More and more people across the UK now recognise—even my dad, I suspect, like that of the hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Tom Hayes)—that leaving the EU has come at the cost of making us all poorer.
My constituent, Alistair, rightly points out:
“There has never been a comprehensive, independent and trusted review of the full costs of Brexit”—
but if there were, I suspect the findings would be deeply sobering. In an increasingly unstable global landscape shaped by shifting US politics and rising tariffs, it is more important than ever that we secure strong, stable trading links with Europe. A recent YouGov poll of over 15,000 people showed that nearly half want trade with the EU as a top priority, compared with just 22% who prioritise America.
One area that deserves urgent focus is defence, and I declare an interest as a proud member of the all-party parliamentary group for the armed forces and a member of the armed forces parliamentary scheme. We cannot ignore the growing pressure to spend more on defence, especially as the US steps away from NATO. But if we are going to invest more, let us do so by working with trusted European partners, not by handing more contracts to US defence giants. We must ensure that spending supports British jobs and industries, and that we make it easier for the EU to invest in our market-leading UK businesses like those based in my constituency, such as Atlas Elektronik, and those across Dorset, such as BattleLab.
Another area is the veterinary agreement. That gap in policy is having a serious impact on UK farmers, already reeling from the consequences of the Conservatives’ botched trade deal and this Government’s damaging and shortsighted budget changes. Without proper arrangements for animal health and streamlined border checks, exports have dropped. Yet research from Aston University shows that a veterinary agreement with the EU could boost exports by at least 22.5%. That is confirmed by major retailers including Sainsbury’s, Lidl and Marks & Spencer, who have called for a veterinary deal, writing in the Financial Times that red tape is driving up the costs of food and drink. We have heard Ministers express support, but no progress. That must change. It is time to rebuild our relationship with the EU. Let us put forward a modern trade deal that strengthens co-operation on defence, food, farming and a much-needed youth mobility scheme and brings us into a customs union—even if, for political reasons, it needs to have another name. We owe it to our businesses, farmers and young people and the future of the UK. Let us be honest about what has gone wrong and start putting it right.
Catherine Fookes (Monmouthshire) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Andrew Lewin).
The post-Brexit trade deals delivered by the previous Conservative Government have just been appalling. They have not worked well for Wales. We have been flooded with New Zealand lamb—and, as we all know in this room, Welsh lamb is of course the best-tasting lamb in the world. I congratulate the Paymaster General and Minister for the Cabinet Office, my right hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Nick Thomas-Symonds), on his continued work on an SPS deal. We desperately need that for our hard-pressed farmers and for the businesses in my constituency of Monmouthshire.
I recently had a business roundtable with businesses such as TXO, Siltbuster, GreenMeadow and others. They said to me that they are drowning—of the 2 billion pieces of paper that were mentioned earlier, the businesses in my constituency must have 1 billion of them. They are drowning in paperwork, and it is slowing them down. To be honest, after I met with them, during my two-hour business roundtable, I was astonished and amazed that they had all stayed in Monmouthshire, employing local people, while continuing to face such a barrage of barriers and administration.
The No.1 thing that those businesses need is for us to remove some of those trade barriers. In order to smooth their trade, we need to keep our standards the same as those in the EU. That was the No.1 priority of all those businesses, and I congratulate all those who signed the letter saying that. We must have regulatory alignment if we are to grow. We must remember that this Government’s No.1 mission is economic growth. If we align with EU standards and continue to grow our trade with the EU, that is exactly what we will get.
I am delighted to be a member of the UK-EU Parliamentary Partnership Assembly and to have gone to Brussels recently. We were welcomed with open arms by our MEP colleagues, because they said they felt that the grown-ups were back in the room; they were delighted with the leadership of the Prime Minister bringing us closer to Europe. I encourage the Government to continue to do that work.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy. I congratulate the hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Andrew Lewin) on his work in securing this debate. We have seen over the past few months the extent to which the current US Administration is no longer a reliable ally. We can see the extraordinary damage being caused by the implementation of Trump’s tariffs on trading relationships around the world. With the increasingly unpredictable and aggressive signals coming from across the Atlantic, this must be the moment to stand firmly with our European neighbours for our national security and economic stability, as well as to strengthen our trading relationships.
The UK-EU summit next month in London, hosted by the Prime Minister, will be an opportunity that must be seized for us to move on from the warm words of pragmatism that we have heard from the Government, but which are no longer good enough. We must move faster, and the Government must commit to serious action to rebuild our relationship with Europe.
While we know that the long-term wellbeing of the UK means being back in the heart of Europe, that requires strengthened trading agreements and a customs union. Closer ties with Europe are also key to our national security. We are glad that there are serious indications that the Government will commit to a defence agreement with Europe, but that must be just the beginning.
There are broader partnerships with our European neighbours, which the Liberal Democrats will continue to call for, that will be advantageous to British businesses. We know that a youth mobility deal would be good for our economy, especially our tourism and hospitality sectors, while providing young British people with the opportunity to work and study abroad. That is exactly the kind of pragmatic step that we hope the Government will take at the upcoming summit.
Having spent the last five years grappling with the bureaucracy of Brexit and with increased trading costs, many business owners across the country will now be deeply concerned by the additional challenges to businesses coming from Washington. The returning Trump Administration has fundamentally changed trading relations globally, which has created an obvious moment for us to take action to establish closer trading relationships with our European neighbours.
The EU is our closest neighbour and our largest trading partner, but the botched Brexit deal has been a complete disaster for this country, especially for small businesses, which are held back by reams of red tape and new barriers to trade, costing our economy billions in lost exports. I urge the Government to acknowledge the damage that the Conservatives’ Brexit regulation has done and continues to do to not just to individual businesses but to the economy as a whole, and to take the sensible step of negotiating a new UK-EU customs union to ease the pressure that so many businesses are under.
Joe Powell (Kensington and Bayswater) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Jeremy. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Andrew Lewin) for securing this debate, and all the Ministers who are working flat out on the European reset.
As others have said, the instability and conflict on European soil has changed the context in our continent, but the context has also changed globally, with long-held assumptions about globalisation, trade and economic certainty breaking down rapidly. The case for strong partnerships with like-minded countries based on free and frictionless trade, shared values and political trust has never been clearer, as the Chancellor set out in Washington this week.
I was elected last July to be the MP for Kensington and Bayswater, the most international constituency in the country, and I stood on a clear promise to those residents that I would be a pro-European voice in Parliament and advocate for a closer, more pragmatic UK-EU relationship, after years of chaos under the Conservatives. The global businesses, the world-class institutions such as Imperial, the international trade hubs and, most importantly, the blended families from all over the world all say the same thing to me: uncertainty and red tape from the current shambolic deal have hurt investment, jobs, growth and family relationships, and have hit our economy to the tune of £100 billion. My constituents voted not for more trade barriers and bureaucracy, but for co-operation, opportunity and a shared future with Europe.
First, we need to go further on security, deepening defence co-operation between the UK and the EU, to stand firm against Putin’s aggression. Whenever I meet my Ukrainian community at our social club, the embassy or our school, I am reminded of exactly what is at stake in the EU-UK defence pact. Going further on procurement, on intelligence sharing—as we have done with Germany—and on stopping people smuggling shows what we can achieve together.
Secondly, we must open doors for our young people, not keep them closed. I have met so many young people who dream of studying, working and living in Europe. We should negotiate a bespoke youth mobility scheme for UK and EU citizens under 30, as we have with other countries, including Australia and Canada, not to return to free moment, but to create time-limited opportunities that benefit the next generation. We should embrace that as a positive step, not something to be feared or talked down.
Thirdly, we need to embrace the practical steps on trade that others have talked about, which would make a real difference for British businesses. This is a critical few weeks for our trading relationship with Europe, from von der Leyen’s visit today to the summit on 19 May. It is time for maximum ambition, and the Government have my full support.
Sir Jeremy Wright (in the Chair)
I will call the Front Benchers at 4.25 pm, so discipline will be required if everyone is going to get in.
Monica Harding (Esher and Walton) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy. I thank the hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Andrew Lewin) for securing this debate.
The UK’s relationship with the European Union goes beyond trade barriers. It prompts the fundamental question: in an increasingly dangerous and volatile world, do we wish to be adrift and isolated, or will we stand united with our closest neighbours? Despite Brexit, the EU remains our largest trading partner. A market of 450 million consumers lies on our doorstep and the Government are still failing to leverage that proximity. Despite their search for growth—apparently their one overriding mission—the botched Brexit deal has inflicted deep and lasting damage to our economy. Our trade volume is 15% lower and long-term productivity is 4% lower—and for what?
We are still waiting for the US trade deal, which is unlikely to be what we need it to be, under the “America first” presidency. Our current arrangements with the European Union are fragmented and bureaucratic, and that actively undermines our growth and prosperity. The consequences of Brexit are stark, and my constituents in Esher and Walton have been badly affected. Higher prices strain budgets. My local businesses, which once traded seamlessly, now face mountains of paperwork and costly delays. Meanwhile, the promised benefits of Brexit remain unseen.
The ramifications of this broken relationship have become even more apparent following recent developments across the Atlantic. The steel tariffs on British exports have dispelled the fantasy that the US-UK trade deal would compensate for the Brexit damage. As we face a stagnating economy, the Government cannot seriously claim to be exploring all the ways to boost growth, given that they are staying within the previous Conservative Government’s red lines on Europe.
The Liberal Democrats are the only party offering a credible solution: forming a customs union with the European Union and revitalising our trade. That would provide certainty and optimism. It is workable and achievable, and would send a message to rogue actors and special relationships that we are united and determined in the face of aggression, even trade aggression.
If the Government are really serious about growth, they must show the leadership that our country needs. Follow the trade, follow the money and undo the botched Brexit deal that bust our country.
Ms Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy, and to be part of today’s debate.
It is less than 100 days since Donald Trump entered the White House, and in those 100 days, I hope we have finally seen an end to the myth that leaving the European Union and isolating ourselves would somehow increase our sovereignty. We are now uniquely exposed to world events, whether it is tariffs, the actions of President Putin, or our ability to exercise influence in relation to the concerns we might have regarding Israel and Palestine. The public are paying the price, and they deserve better from all of us. Let us be frank: blue passports are no substitute for British jobs.
However, I come to Westminster Hall today not to say, “I told you so,” but to play my part in fixing the problem. In the short time available to me, I want to say that, while the MPs may be getting younger, too often in this place, the debates are old. I reassure the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Andrew Griffith), that although I may be the chair of the Labour Movement for Europe—I declare that interest—I do not come here to campaign for rejoin. We have left the European Union. Instead, I come to campaign for my constituents and people across this country who need the jobs and growth that a reset with Europe will offer, moving on from the red lines of the old debates to look at what is in our mutual interest and the summit that is ahead of us on 19 May.
I agree with many of the points that colleagues have made, so let me try to offer two further points. Particularly given that President von der Leyen is here today and has talked about the importance of us working together on regulation, I want to talk about the energy summit, and in particular about addressing the carbon border adjustment mechanism—I agree very much with the Chair of the Business and Trade Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North (Liam Byrne), about that. UK exporters of energy, including our electricity industry, our steel industry, our ceramics industry and more, will pay the price if we do not tackle the impact of having a different emissions trading scheme.
We also have to tackle all the paperwork—we in the Labour Movement for Europe are the reds against the red tape—so yes, we need to deal with the pan-Euro-Mediterranean convention. We also need to deal with SPS and with the VAT differences that people are facing. Farmers, the chemical industry, the border target operating model and car industries will all benefit if we tackle those things; and of course, we need a visa system. We do not have time to talk about rejoin—it would take too long—but we can do something about the 17,000 businesses that have stopped trading with Europe. If we do that, we will bring back the British jobs and the British growth that we so desperately need. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say about that.
Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Andrew Lewin) on securing this critical debate. It is an understatement to say that since the US elections, the plates of international politics have been shifting, especially since the Trump Administration announced the introduction of trade tariffs. British people are rethinking their opinions, and one welcome consequence of that process relates to the EU. An opinion poll commissioned by the TUC and conducted earlier this month found that two in three Brits now back a closer relationship with the EU, with just 20% opposed. That includes key target voters, such as eight in 10 of those who switched from Conservative to Labour at the 2024 election and more than half of Reform-leaning voters who voted Labour but may now vote Reform.
Perhaps that is not too surprising. As we have heard, according to official figures, the long-term impact of the UK leaving the single market and the customs union is the loss of between 4% and 8% of our GDP. As Trump seeks to raise trade barriers, it feels like a no-brainer that we should be seeking to reduce ours with our closest neighbours. Research by the think-tank that has already been referenced found that a deal with the EU that included deeper alignment on goods and services would completely offset the impact of US tariffs for the UK. Unfortunately, to date, the Government seem too in fear of being accused by the right of being too close to the EU to lead decisively on this issue. The Prime Minister’s earlier rejection of the EU’s proposal of a youth mobility scheme with the UK is just one example where the Government have baulked at acting in the national interest. Along with many others, I hope that the Prime Minister adopts an approach less driven by the fear of Reform at next month’s EU-UK summit.
Although I voted to remain, I believe it is important that the democratic will of the people is respected, but it is also important that we are honest with the people about the lies they were told and the harms that Brexit has brought to our nation. It is therefore time to stop being afraid to speak the truth about the damage of Brexit and to act in the national interest. Now is the perfect time to start writing a new chapter and move towards a more positive trading relationship with the EU.
Steve Race (Exeter) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy. I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Andrew Lewin) for securing this debate.
As Members have stated so eloquently, it is time for a pragmatic reset of our relationship with our nearest neighbours and oldest partners. This is not about reopening old wounds, but about fixing the harm done to our economy and our security by mistakes under the last Government and recognising that our future prosperity can be improved with better UK-EU relations.
As Government Members referenced in our joint letter to the Secretary of State, we live in a period of increasing global instability. Certainties based on the post-world-war-two rules-based systems of trade are breaking down, and our stability, prosperity and security rely on having deep and resilient partnerships with like-minded nations. Therefore, we will be stronger when we work with, not against, our neighbours. That principle must guide our approach to Europe.
We already see the benefits of co-operation in the emerging UK-European defence partnership: standing together with Ukraine in the face of Russian aggression, bolstering European security, and demonstrating that our shared values of democracy and the rule of law are more than just words. This is an area that must be deepened for the good of our joint defence and security.
Trade, too, should be an urgent area for renewal. There are many areas of UK-EU trade that we should aim to ease, and they have been referenced throughout the debate. One area that should be looked at anew is the pan-Euro-Mediterranean convention. It is already used by many of our European neighbours, and it offers a model for streamlined trade across borders without being a member of an EU institution. It simplifies rules of origin, cuts red tape and helps goods move faster. The Government should be proactively exploring our alignment with this system. It will be good for many SMEs in Exeter.
Rachel Blake (Cities of London and Westminster) (Lab/Co-op)
In addition to trade and the important points that have been made about defence, does my hon. Friend agree that we should also consider a cultural touring agreement? That would support cultural organisations across the country, including the Barbican, the Royal Opera House and those in the west end. Not only would it help them and their business, but it would encourage people to come to London, and it would support economic growth across the country.
Steve Race
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. That would very much help the cultural institutions in my Exeter constituency, too, so I absolutely agree.
Since the end of the transition period, UK exports to the EU have faced barriers that did not exist before, with small businesses disproportionately hit. According to the OBR, our overall trade intensity has fallen by 15% compared with where it should have been. This is not inevitable; it was a policy choice by the last Government, and this Government can and should choose differently.
Closer economic ties mean growth. They mean investment in green energy, digital infrastructure and research, which are all sectors in which Exeter is already leading the way. They could now also mean opportunities for our next generation of young people to study, work and thrive across our shared continent.
This is not about going back. It is about going forward clear-eyed, ambitious for our future and in partnership with those who share our values and interests. My residents in Exeter deserve that future, our country deserves that future, and I encourage the Government to be ambitious for that future at the next summit.
Liam Conlon (Beckenham and Penge) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Andrew Lewin) on securing this debate. In the very limited time available, I will make two points. The first concerns the importance of economic co-operation, and the second is in support of a youth mobility scheme.
Over Easter, I had the pleasure of spending time in Northern Ireland, which coincided with the 27th anniversary of the Good Friday agreement. Reflecting on that, there is no greater example of how trade with the EU, and trade more generally, is always about more than goods and services; it is fundamentally about people. The creation of the single market in 1993 brought down physical barriers and borders, and with it, diluted notions of allegiance and of “us and them”. Economic co-operation paved the way for one of the greatest political acts of the 21st century, and it is also a reminder that we must reject the isolationism that we see in countries around the world today. We should be proud to work with countries and proud of that co-operation.
Tied to that, I know that there is a lot of support in Beckenham and Penge for a youth mobility scheme. In fact, I had two work experience students with me this week, who are in the Public Gallery, James and Paula. We were talking at lunchtime today about that. It is a right that I enjoyed when I was growing up, and the next generation should be entitled to that as well. The shift in language used in relation to our closest neighbours and friends has been significant over the past nine months, and it is welcomed. I ask the Government to continue with that and to be bold ahead of the EU-UK summit next week.
Ben Coleman (Chelsea and Fulham) (Lab)
I am most grateful to you, Sir Jeremy. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Andrew Lewin) on calling this important debate, which I am pleased about; as Members of Parliament, it is not often that we get a chance to speak so clearly about what we do to represent our constituents’ interests and the British interest.
Our job as Members of Parliament is to keep our country strong and secure, with a strong economy and strong defence, and to provide opportunity to everyone, not least our young people. That is what this debate is about: promoting the British interest. That lies at the heart of why we need to get a better deal from the European Union that gets growth for our country in the swiftest way possible, at a time when this Government are so committed to growth, by lowering the barriers and removing the red tape that have come out of the hopeless deal patched together so feebly by the last Government.
As has been said, we especially need to lower the barriers for small and medium-sized firms, which have been hit the hardest. I think of the specialist wine importer in my constituency that has to pay an extra £160 for every shipment.
Tony Vaughan (Folkestone and Hythe) (Lab)
Following the Tory Brexit deal, we have seen lorries backing up from Dover, through my constituency and deep into Kent now that we have customs and immigration checks. Does my hon. Friend agree that a deal to eliminate barriers on food and drink being exported to the EU would help to reduce friction at Dover and throughout our road network?
Ben Coleman
I absolutely agree. We need a veterinary agreement to improve the situation in our country. I agree with the proposal to allow British bands and creatives to tour more easily and that we should have more mutual recognition of professional qualifications to support our service industries. We should be as ambitious as we can. We should therefore start talking about a deal to end regulatory divergence, so that companies do not have to spend hundreds of thousands of pounds on two sets of standards and two sets of testing regimes.
The situation we face as a result of the deal that the Conservative Government negotiated is not patriotism: it is self-sabotage, and we need to do something about it. Part of that is about us needing to do more to give opportunity to our young people, which is why I support having a controlled youth visa scheme that provides just that opportunity.
Finally, I turn to defence, which some of my colleagues have mentioned. The UK has a huge role to play in the defence of our continent; I do not think any European countries doubt that. It is clearly in all our interests across Europe for the UK and the European Union to sign a new security agreement. We need stronger defence and new jobs in the UK and right across the continent, and that is why our Government must be absolutely clear with some other countries in the European Union. Defence and security co-operation are too fundamental to dealing with the challenges that our countries face, and they must be decoupled from other political negotiations. They are too important to be tied to debates about fishing rights or quotas.
We need cool-headed, determined and ambitious negotiations with the European Union that back Britain. In that way, we can get the better deal that my constituents in Chelsea and Fulham and the British people deserve.
Martin Rhodes (Glasgow North) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairing, Sir Jeremy. Due to the limits of time, I will focus on the UK’s creative industries, particularly music and the performing arts.
The Department for Culture, Media and Sport estimates that music, the performing arts and the visual arts add approximately £11.2 billion to the UK economy annually and employ 283,000 people. Without dedicated provisions in the UK-EU trade and co-operation agreement, performers, artists and production teams face the challenge of navigating different regulations in each of the 27 EU member states, each of which has its own administrative and financial barriers. Although larger and more established acts may absorb those challenges, they pose disproportionate barriers to emerging talent. Furthermore, this acts as a barrier to cultural exchange between the EU and the UK. Ease of travel for artists and musicians helps to strengthen relationships and business connections across the continent and helps both cultural scenes to thrive.
While I welcome the Government’s assurances that they are seeking some form of specific cultural carve-out, or at least allowances for music rules, performing arts and culture touring, there remains a greater need for a systemic change for the creative industry’s access to Europe, and vice versa. That is why I urge the Government to consider a dedicated cultural mobility agreement with the EU or, at the very least, a meaningful cultural exemption to safeguard the future of our creative industries and restore the cultural exchange that has long enriched the EU and the UK. I hope that the Minister will say something on that in his response.
Uma Kumaran (Stratford and Bow) (Lab)
I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Andrew Lewin) for securing this important debate. I proudly stood on a Labour manifesto that placed growth at the heart of the Government’s mission. That goal has never been more necessary, as Labour inherited a stagnating economy from the Conservatives. In the turbulent economic and diplomatic climate in which we find ourselves, it would be inexplicable not to recognise our geographically and economically closest trading partner, the European Union, as a key partner for growth.
I am pleased that the Government are set to seek a reset with our European partners. The next step is the upcoming EU-UK summit. I, too, was part of the UK- EU Parliamentary Partnership Assembly; I and many other colleagues here travelled to Brussels, where we were welcomed as friends and allies. They were pleased that Britain was back as a partner.
I have only a short time to speak, so I will touch on just one point. The SPS agreement is focused on ensuring food safety and protecting animal and plant health. Earlier this month, as vice-chair of the all-party group on international conservation, I was fortunate enough to visit the Zoological Society of London and meet its pygmy hippo, Amara. Hon. Members may wonder why I am talking about a pygmy hippo, but there are more parliamentary passholders on this estate than there are pygmy hippos in the wild. While at the ZSL, I learned more about its work to bring species back from extinction. By working across borders to ensure that genetically diverse and healthy populations exist, organisations such as ZSL and its partners around the world are actively bringing back from the brink species ranging from the scimitar-horned oryx to the partula snail, which just a few weeks ago was down-listed from “extinct in the wild” to “critically endangered”.
However, ZSL’s work has been put at risk. Transfers that would have once been completed in just weeks now take months or even years because of the new misalignment between ourselves and the EU. That could be solved as part of an ambitious SPS agreement, but the Government need to make sure that that is included in the discussions. Is that something that the Minister has considered? If so, does he plan to raise it with his EU counterparts? This may sound like a small change, but it could have species-defining consequences for us and our planet.
Peter Prinsley (Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket) (Lab)
Yesterday, I visited Hinkley Point C, the largest building site in Europe, an international project built through close co-operation with European partners, and a powerful example of how trade and co-operation with Europe is essential to our success. “Big Carl” was at work. The largest crane in the world, manufactured by Sarens in Belgium and imported to Britain because it is the only crane capable of doing the job, Big Carl is just one example of why a smooth trading relationship is essential. British businesses thrive by selling into the European market and rely on importing specialised goods that only Europe provides.
Back home, in Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket, we can see how vital the relationship is. We have one of the largest centres for paint and coating production in the country. PPG Industries runs a major manufacturing facility in Stowmarket with 350 people, mixing paints and coatings shipped around the world, and AkzoNobel, a Dutch paint company, employs 150 people. Those two companies have nearly 500 people out of the industry’s national workforce of 1,400, and they are deeply entwined with the EU. Under the previous Government, they faced sharp increases in costs due to the barriers, they have had to contend with diverging chemical rules, and they face logistical headaches when importing raw materials. But these are large companies; imagine how much harder it is for small businesses.
Beautiful Beers specialises in selling fantastic Belgian beers imported from the continent. Its owner, René, faces a bureaucratic nightmare. He is doing it alone and struggling. I have heard the same story from businesses all over the place. Since Brexit, getting goods through customs has become a major hurdle, which we need to sort out with UK-EU customs co-operation. The previous Government left businesses and the country in a mess and Bury St Edmunds in the worst possible situation, so I am really glad that this Government are beginning to sort things out.
Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Lab)
It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Sir Jeremy, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Andrew Lewin) on securing the debate at such a timely moment for our relationship with the European Union, given this time of global insecurity. As a Cornishman, I would like to highlight concerns raised to me by our fishing industry. Its daily reality is far from the post-Brexit panacea that promised so much and delivered so little to the fishermen in Camborne, Redruth and Hayle.
Noah Law (St Austell and Newquay) (Lab)
Given the willingness and readiness of other parties, including one conspicuously absent from this crucial debate, to throw our fish under the bus and make fishing fleets again a political football, will my hon. Friend join me and our hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea and Fulham (Ben Coleman) in calling on our Government to ensure that that will not happen, and that we will, above all, protect employment in our fishing fleets in Mevagissey and elsewhere?
Perran Moon
That was a typically perceptive Cornish intervention from my hon. Friend.
This issue affects fishermen not just in my constituency, but elsewhere in Cornwall and across the UK. The Business and Trade Committee’s report on EU relations points out:
“The fruits of the sea around our borders are a part of our shared ecology, and…must be managed carefully to protect the livelihoods of future generations.”
Businesses and livelihoods in fishing communities must not be bargaining chips, as some media outlets are suggesting; they are invaluable elements of local economies that must be protected and strengthened. At the same time, we must make progress toward reducing trade barriers with our trading partners in the EU. The former is crucial to the latter, because the Government’s current and future negotiations have to bring the British people, including our fishing industry, with them. I hope that the Minister will confirm that the Government are working towards a fair deal for our fisheries that will secure their long-term stability.
This is a moment for our Government to provide leadership, which was so severely lacking in the last Government’s half-baked negotiations. Although, as we have heard, larger and higher profile sectors will form the basis of these delicate negotiations, we must not abandon the need to reassure our vital fishing communities and protect fishing stocks.
Sir Jeremy Wright (in the Chair)
I thank all Back-Bench colleagues for their co-operation, which is very much appreciated. We move on to the Front-Bench spokesmen, beginning with the Liberal Democrats.
James MacCleary (Lewes) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy. I add my congratulations to the hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Andrew Lewin) on securing this timely debate, and thank all hon. Members for their well-informed contributions. The debate has shown that the discussion has moved on from whether we need to improve our trading relationship with the European Union to how we improve the relationship. That is an important step in the right direction.
It is beyond dispute that our current trading relationship with the European Union has profoundly damaged our economy. Businesses across the country—small businesses, farmers and fishers—have borne the brunt of the Conservatives’ botched Brexit deal. They face layers of unnecessary red tape and barriers that strangle trade, dampen growth and undermine prosperity. The numbers speak for themselves: British exports to the EU fell sharply after Brexit and have yet to recover, remaining 11% below their 2019 levels, and astonishingly, four out of every 10 British products once stocked on EU shelves have now vanished. The impact on farmers and fishers is starkly illustrated by the leap from a single, simple form to an absurd 21-step bureaucratic nightmare, which leaves our produce literally unable to cross the channel. British sausages, which were once sold freely from Paris to Berlin, are now banned outright—an absurd situation that captures perfectly the farcical outcome of the disastrous deal negotiated by the last Government.
This is not merely about statistics; it is about livelihoods. I speak regularly to small businesses in my constituency. They tell me directly that their market shrank overnight, while the complexity and cost of doing business with the rest of Europe ballooned. Our farmers face financial uncertainty, and fishers, including my local fishing fleet in Newhaven, having been promised prosperity by Brexit campaigners, now struggle under an avalanche of paperwork and export costs, which put their livelihoods at risk.
We urgently need a new approach—a pragmatic, ambitious plan to rebuild our relationship with Europe and reinvigorate our economy. Disappointingly, the new Government appear to lack precisely the ambition we need. They have ruled out even common-sense measures, including, as recently as today, a youth mobility scheme, which could restore opportunities for young Britons to live, work and study abroad. This Government are wrapped in their self-defeating red lines, which seem designed more to please the leadership of Reform UK than to benefit British business and growth.
I was glad to see this morning that the hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield and 70 of his colleagues have signed a letter calling for a youth mobility scheme—it is encouraging to see that kind of resolve across the House —but contrast that with the Government’s response. When my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) questioned the Government on it earlier, the answer was a resounding no. When are this Government going to get serious? If we do not show clear and consistent intent in time for the EU-UK summit in May, the EU will simply move on.
We cannot afford to squander what good will remains. That is why the Liberal Democrats have proposed a clear, four-step road map to heal our fractured ties with Europe, starting immediately with unilateral steps to restore good will and trust, which must include re-engaging proactively in vital foreign policy dialogues. We then need to rebuild confidence by rejoining crucial European programmes such as Erasmus+, participating actively in scientific collaborations, and reconnecting with a central body—the European Union Aviation Safety Agency, for example.
Central to our economic recovery must be deeper trade co-operation, particularly through a comprehensive veterinary and plant health agreement and the mutual recognition of professional qualifications. Those measures would immediately remove significant barriers to British businesses. Most important, we must place ourselves firmly on the path to negotiating a robust customs union by 2030. That step alone would remove needless checks and bureaucracy at our borders, injecting desperately needed momentum back into our economy.
It is vital to understand what a customs union could achieve. It means tariff-free streamlined trade for most goods—a practical, proven solution already successfully embraced by other countries outside the EU. A customs union would place Britain back at the heart of European trade, boost our economy and insulate us from unpredictable global disruption—especially from the protectionist forces emerging in the United States. Even a signal from this Government that they are open to a customs union would boost markets and stimulate growth. Recent experiences under Trump’s aggressive tariff regime have clearly demonstrated the need for leverage in global trade discussions, and that is something that a customs union with our largest and nearest trading partner could provide. Instead of begging for special deals with America, we could strengthen our relationship with Europe, rebuilding from a position of strength rather than weakness.
We cannot afford more timid half-measures or missed opportunities. British businesses, workers and young people deserve better. The Liberal Democrats are clear and unwavering: we must restore confidence, rebuild trust and revitalise our economic ties with Europe. The public are watching: will this Government be defined by cuts to international development and winter fuel payments for pensioners, and job-killing taxes on small businesses, or will they instead take the hard-headed, pragmatic decision to ditch their disastrous red lines and enter into negotiations for a customs union, so that Britain can truly regain the strong, prosperous economy its citizens deserve?
Andrew Griffith (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy. I congratulate the hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Andrew Lewin) on securing this debate. I thank the many colleagues who contributed, and commend your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy, in giving so many colleagues the chance to do so. I also commend the efforts of the Business and Trade Committee, which has come up with a report containing many worthy and sensible suggestions.
We owe it to the British businesses that create growth, jobs and the wealth of our country to secure for them the most favourable terms for the UK in the tapestry of global trade, wherever the markets may be. That means focusing on areas of maximum opportunity wherever they are, and on sectors where we can benefit from growing markets, innovation and indeed our shared values.
We all seek more trade with our European neighbours, but we already have a tariff-free deal for the export and import of goods. There are some wins to be had: the European Central Bank, for example, is restoring clearing to the UK, which is pragmatic, sensible and a reflection of the facts on the ground; but those opportunities do not appear to us to be what the Government are focused on. Perhaps the Minister will correct us on that.
It is clear that Labour’s EU reset—perhaps to the welcome of many of the Minister’s colleagues—is actually a plan carried forward from Opposition dating back to the referendum in 2016, with the objective of overturning that referendum in substance, if not in name.
Andrew Griffith
I will not give way, as everyone has been very good on timing. I will get through my speech to give the Minister as much time as possible to deal with all of the points raised.
In all seriousness, across all western European economies, we face a real crisis of trust in politics and a rise in extremism among people who do not necessarily see the solutions to the problems their countries face in arguing them out reasonably, as we are doing today. Why any genuine democrat, whatever their personal views, could possibly think that reversing a decision made by the people in 2016 is the right approach—[Interruption.] Although it is refreshing to make common cause with the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy),who indeed does not do that, it is also refreshing, sort of, to hear the hon. Member for Lewes (James MacCleary) set out the misguided but at least honest approach of desiring to return to the rule of Brussels via a full customs union, which I understand is not on the Government’s agenda.
We Conservatives have set out five clear tests to protect people’s trust and confidence. There must be no backsliding on free movement, no new money paid to the European Union and no reduction in our fishing rights, including—I will take an intervention from the Green party’s hon. Member for Bristol Central (Carla Denyer) on this if she would like—no backsliding on the environmental protection for sand eels that the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds says is vital to the protection of British seabirds and puffins. I see no intervention coming, so I will move on, but the EU is litigating against the British Government right now to prevent that environmental protection measure from being implemented. The last two tests are: no rule taking, dynamic alignment or ECJ jurisdiction; and, notwithstanding working with anybody on a defence pact—I agree with the hon. Member for Chelsea and Fulham (Ben Coleman) that there must be no linkage between defending European soil and the transactional approach to British fishing taken by some countries—no undermining of or compromise on the primacy of NATO. Those are the tests that, in our view, will maintain the trust of the British people. I hope that the Minister will put our fears to rest.
The Product Regulation and Metrology Bill currently before Parliament is perhaps one of the most blatant examples of how a Government may fail the test. It is a Trojan horse, a blank cheque forcing this Government to become a rule-taker. I realise that many colleagues are new to this place, although many are not and have much more distinguished service histories than myself, but I hope that when colleagues look at that Bill and it is scrutinised in the House of Lords Constitution Committee and the Commons legislative Committees, they will look at the deficiencies of that Bill under this or any other Government going forward.
We have heard calls for a return to open borders via a youth mobility scheme. While previous Governments have put in place youth mobility schemes of a certain volume, as the Government considers that return, it would be interesting to hear what the impact would be on British graduates, whose wage premium is the lowest it has ever been. What impact would opening the floodgates have on the rental crisis in London, or on the burdens of the NHS? There was some talk about improving education, but we already have visa schemes for work and visa schemes to come here to study. What will be the incrementality of a youth mobility scheme?
We have heard a number of times about this being a moment for cool heads, not for piling on retaliatory tariffs in a global trade war, and Members will commend themselves on how progressive and level-headed they are, but let us take a balanced view. It was not the US that unilaterally threatened to invoke article 16 to prevent British citizens having access to vaccines; it was not the US that kicked the United Kingdom out of Horizon, a scheme entirely separate from our membership of the European Union; and it is not the US that is still depriving British citizens of the use of e-gates when they travel—an opportunity that we afford visitors from the EU coming to this country, so let us just have some balance in that debate.
To be clear, given the relative scale of the opportunity and the fact that we already have a free trade goods deal with the European Union, were we in government, the Conservatives would have prioritised—right now—a US trade deal. It has been 170 days since President Trump was elected, but the Government have yet to publish any objectives for their negotiations with the US. Whatever we might think about those objectives, British exporters today are paying the price for the absence of that agreement. Through that absence of transparency, Parliament is being disrespected and none of us has any idea which businesses or farm sectors may pay the price for that deal in future.
Our hard-won freedoms offer us the unrivalled chance, if we seize it, to steer our own course in a difficult and uncertain world. We can have the best of all worlds: trade with Europe, North America, the gulf, Asia and Africa. The Conservatives would not pursue one of those many attractive opportunities in a prejudiced way at the expense of others, and I hope that is also the Government’s position.
Sir Jeremy Wright (in the Chair)
I call the Minister. He has until 4.55 pm if he wants it, but if he is feeling generous, he may want to leave the Member in charge a couple of minutes to wind up.
The Minister for Trade Policy and Economic Security (Mr Douglas Alexander)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy. I will certainly endeavour to extend that generosity. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Andrew Lewin) on securing an important and timely debate, and commend him for his ongoing work on the issue as the chair of the UK Trade and Business Commission. The letter that he and a number of parliamentary colleagues present submitted to the Minister for the Cabinet Office, who leads for the Government on UK-EU relationships, made some excellent points, many of which I will endeavour to address in my remarks today. I will seek to specifically address the three main points that he raised in his introductory speech—the mutual recognition of professional qualifications, the broader alignment and the youth mobility scheme. I also thank all hon. Members who have spoken today.
First, I will set out why we must use our strengthened relations with the EU to deliver a long-term UK-EU strategic alliance that grows our economy. I listened with care to the remarks of the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Andrew Griffith), suggesting that if the Conservative party were in office, we would have the best of all worlds. I struggle to reconcile that with the universe that the rest of us live in: the Conservative Government not only abjectly failed to secure a trade agreement with the United States, but alienated our closest trading partners in the European Union and were in a deep freeze with China. It is not entirely clear what the Conservatives’ grand post-Brexit strategy involved.
Let us consider the numbers for a moment. In trade, geography still matters. As a bloc, the European Union is still the UK’s largest trading market, covering 46% or about £813 billion of our trade. It is important to note that the UK is the EU’s second-largest trade partner, but unfortunately, UK exports to the EU were 5% lower in 2024 than they were in 2018, which is the most recent stable pre-Brexit, pre-covid year for comparison, and UK imports from the EU have remained level at about plus 0.4%.
Moreover, our overall global trade performance continues to suffer, and we are lagging behind our G7 peers. In 2024, our global trade flows were only 4% above 2018 levels, while other G7 economies have seen an average trade growth of 8%. What explains those trends? There is an increasing body of external research studies, such as those of the London School of Economics Centre for Economic Performance and Aston University, which demonstrate that Brexit accounts for those changes. That is why it is in both the UK and the EU’s interest to strengthen our trading relationship.
Let me turn now to some of the specific issues raised during the debate. The hon. Member for Arbroath and Broughty Ferry (Stephen Gethins), who I like and admire on a personal level, gave a sadly rather partisan speech in wilful denial of the fact that had his side prevailed in the 2014 referendum in Scotland, we would have found ourselves outside the European Union. A politics of manufactured grievance, flags and new borders is as wrong in Scotland as it is here in England. Thankfully, Scotland made its choice to support a sensible and pragmatic internationalist party in July.
Mr Alexander
No, I am keen to make some progress.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North (Liam Byrne) made a characteristically brilliant speech—a judgment in no way related to the fact that he is the Chair of the Business and Trade Committee. In all seriousness, fresh from the spring meetings in Washington this week, he brought a wider geopolitical perspective to our debate that frames the conversations that are happening today between EU Commission President von der Leyen and the Prime Minister.
I note all the points that were made by the hon. Member for Bristol Central (Carla Denyer). I simply say that when I see images of the Prime Minister meeting President Trump in the Oval Office, meeting EU Commission President von der Leyen today, at the Lancaster House summit, or sitting with President Macron in Paris, I feel a sense of relief and change. There is change, because the clown show is over, and there is relief that we have a serious Prime Minister for these serious times.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Tom Hayes), in a strikingly personal speech, spoke eloquently of the divisions we witnessed within families and communities at the time of the Brexit referendum. That explains why we as a Government have no interest in reopening old divisions and wounds, and instead are working to remove unnecessary barriers and strengthen our trading relationships.
No debate in this House would be complete without the contribution of the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). I assure him, although he is no longer in his place, that in the work of both the Minister for the Cabinet Office and the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the concerns and needs of Northern Ireland are never far from their thoughts.
My hon. Friend the Member for Northampton South (Mike Reader) brought to bear all his professional experience working across Europe and made a characteristically powerful case for the mutual recognition of professional qualifications. I made that case only this morning at a meeting with TheCityUK representatives here in London. The hon. Member for Melksham and Devizes (Brian Mathew) then spoke eloquently of the need to maintain high standards in farming and the merits of strengthening our trading relationship with the European Union.
My hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Ben Goldsborough) took us on a veritable tour of research and innovation labs in his constituency. He is right to recognise that innovation today relies on not only often complex, integrated and international supply chains, but research co-operation. What was the opportunity cost of the years when the previous Government took us out of the Horizon cross-Europe research programme? It is exactly that kind of research collaboration that our own scientists need and demand if they are going to continue to be world leading in their research domains.
The hon. Member for Wokingham (Clive Jones) highlighted some of the statistics that I also used in this debate to highlight the damage done by our predecessors. He asked if we would act only in the national interest. That is an undertaking I am happy to offer. National interest is the north star by which we are navigating these frankly turbulent trading waters today.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West (Phil Brickell) spoke of the civic ties between his community and Germany. It was a timely and helpful reminder that first through the European Coal and Steel Community, then through the European Economic Community, and ultimately through the European Union, the European project has always been about peace as well as security and prosperity.
The hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Vikki Slade) also touched on the need for spending on defence to reflect the changing circumstances, not least in the Euro-Atlantic security area. That is a recognition that underpins the strategic defence review and the recent decisions that have been reached on defence expenditure by this Government.
My hon. Friend the Member for Monmouthshire (Catherine Fookes) asked me to pass on her good wishes to the Minister for the Cabinet Office for all his excellent work ahead of the UK-EU summit next month. As a colleague in the Cabinet Office, and indeed as a friend, I will be happy to do so. She is right to recognise all the work that he is doing to undo past damage and to rebuild and reset relations with our friends, partners and neighbours in the European Union.
The hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) urged us to take serious action to strengthen our trading relationships with the EU. Again, I assure her that that is exactly the work to which we have committed ourselves.
My hon. Friend the Member for Kensington and Bayswater (Joe Powell) rightly referred to the changed context on our continent, and indeed in our world. Red tape and uncertainty—his description—seems a pretty fair judgment of the inheritance that we secured in July. In these history-shaping days, it is right to recognise the changing geopolitical and geo-economic backdrop for the negotiations under way—not just the talks in Downing Street today, but those being led by the Minister for the Cabinet Office ahead of next month’s summit.
The hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Monica Harding) urged the leadership to follow the trade and follow the money. As I said earlier, we have chosen to follow the data, rather than the post-imperial delusions that were the hallmark of our predecessors’ approach to trade.
My hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy), who has eloquently spoken of the need for closer ties with Europe on many occasions, talked of the need for new debates and offered a number of powerful suggestions for the way forward at the UK-EU summit. I have to say that she offered a fantastically large number of suggestions in the necessarily constrained time for her speech, but I listened carefully to all of them.
The hon. Member for Dewsbury and Batley (Iqbal Mohamed) urged the Government to write a new chapter. I hope we are doing somewhat more than that: we are actually writing a whole new trade strategy, which we aim to publish in the coming weeks.
My hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Steve Race) acknowledged the need for partnerships with like-minded nations. I agree with his powerful points about the particular need for security and defence partnerships given the changed geopolitical context with which we are all familiar.
My hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham and Penge (Liam Conlon) reminded us, with reference to the Good Friday agreement, that we must reject isolationism. I am happy to confirm that we have left behind the era in which a previous Prime Minister resisted the opportunity to confirm that President Macron is indeed a friend of the United Kingdom. Let me confirm today that we regard France as a trading partner, a close neighbour, a steadfast security partner and a country bound to the United Kingdom by bonds not just of shared history, but of shared and continuing friendship.
My hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea and Fulham (Ben Coleman) spoke authoritatively of the need for cool-headed, ambitious negotiations. I assure him that that is the approach that the Government are taking to the coming summit.
My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North (Martin Rhodes) made the case for recognising the challenges faced by touring artists. I put on the record my appreciation of all the work done for our country not just by touring artists but by the creative industries more broadly.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stratford and Bow (Uma Kumaran), in a veritable Noah’s ark of a speech, highlighted not just the importance of the pygmy hippo that she met but, more substantively, the need for an SPS agreement. I assure her that we continue to work on all those issues.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket (Peter Prinsley) moved seamlessly on to a discussion of Carl the crane, and indeed his local businesses. I assure him that we noted all his points, and we will endeavour to ensure that small businesses are at the forefront of our thinking as we work not least on SPS and the other issues about which we have spoken.
My hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth (Perran Moon) brought a Cornish perspective to the debate. I listened carefully to all the points that he made about the need to bring down unnecessary barriers.
The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) similarly spoke eloquently of the needs of fishermen in his constituency, and made the case for an SPS agreement. We committed in our manifesto to negotiate that veterinary agreement with the EU—an agreement on the application of sanitary and phytosanitary measures, to use the technical term. That is because agrifood producers across the United Kingdom are among those most affected, as they are buried in the paperwork left by our predecessors, and are affected by checks when exporting to the EU.
The EU remains an absolutely vital market for agrifood producers, accounting for 57% of the UK’s agrifood exports in 2024. Between 2018 and 2024, UK exports of agrifood products to the European Union, excluding beverages, dropped by 16% in inflation-adjusted terms. I have to say, that does not sound like the best of all worlds to me. The potential benefits of an SPS agreement are clear: Aston University estimates that an SPS agreement could increase UK agrifood exports by fully 22.5%. Bearing in mind that we import more agrifood from the EU than we export to it, a veterinary agreement would of course be mutually beneficial.
A number of Members raised a youth mobility scheme. The UK and the EU are in talks ahead of the summit, but alas I will not provide a running commentary today in this Chamber. We made a clear manifesto commitment to bring down net migration and to have no return to free movement within the EU. It is important that we determine who comes into our country, and those things are not up for negotiation in the continuing discussions.
We would like to strengthen MRPQ arrangements so that businesses can access the right talent at the right time. Again, improvements would be mutually beneficial. UK and European industries have repeatedly asked for the recognition of professional qualifications between the UK and the EU to be strengthened. That includes 24% of respondents to the recent British Chambers of Commerce annual trade survey and the European Services Forum.
On strengthening relations with the EU, we have an opportunity to address some of the trade barriers that we did not explicitly reference in our manifesto, including regulatory co-operation—
Sir Jeremy Wright (in the Chair)
Order. I am sorry to interrupt the Minister, but we are out of time. I thank all hon. Members who have participated in the debate.